1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201000/2015 (MC)

Between:

Smt. Girija @ Girija A Navi

W/o Aravind Navi @ Khedekar

Aged about 32 years

Occ: Household work

Resident of Khedagi Village

Indi Taluk, Bijapur District

Vijayapura District and also

at Hebbal, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk

Vijayapura District-586 101

... Appellant

(By Sri Sanganabasava B. Patil, Advocate)

And:

Sri Aravind S/o Basappa Navi @ Khedekar

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business

Resident of Khedagi Village

Indi Taluk, Vijayapura District-586 101

... Respondent

(By Sri B.C.Jaka, Advocate)

2

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under section

28(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to set aside the

impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi in M.C.No.2 of 2008 dated

13.12.2010 and to dismiss the petition filed by the

respondent in M.C.No.2 of 2008 and alternatively, remand

the petition filed by the respondent in M.C.No.2 of 2008 by

setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi dated 13.12.2014, by

directing

the

court

below

for

providing

reasonable

opportunity to the appellant for defending the above petition.

This appeal coming on for admission this day,

S.G.Pandit, J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The appellant-wife is in appeal under Section 28

(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the ‘Act’)

assailing the exparte judgment and decree dated

13.12.2010 in M.C.No.2/2008 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Indi by which the petition filed by the

respondent-husband under Section 13(1) of the Act for

divorce is allowed and the marriage between the

appellant and respondent is dissolved.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Sanganabasava

B. Patil for appellant-wife and learned counsel Sri B.C.

3

Jaka for respondent-husband. Perused the appeal

papers.

3. It is submitted that the marriage of the

appellant

and

respondent

had

taken

place

on

30.04.2005 at Khedagi village according to Hindu rites

and custom. It is stated that only for 10 days the

appellant - wife stayed with the respondent-husband.

For the reasons best known to the appellant-wife, she

deserted the respondent-husband. The respondent-

husband has alleged that the appellant-wife was puppet

in the hands of her parents and family members.

Further it is stated that the appellant-wife had no

intention of returning to matrimonial home. Appellant-

wife used to complain before the neighbours and

villagers that the respondent-husband and his parents

demanding dowry and harassing and humiliating. The

respondent-husband has stated that both of them are

living separately and without any cohabitation since

4

May, 2005 which has caused anguish and frustration.

According to the respondent-husband it amounts to

mental cruelty and hence he sought for divorce on the

said ground.

4. The judgment reveals that the appellant-wife

even though was served with notice, remained absent

before the trial court and she was placed exparte. The

respondent-husband examined himself as PW-1 and

marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. The trial Court under the

impugned judgment and decree, allowed the petition

and dissolved the marriage of the appellant and

respondent, against which the appellant-wife is before

this Court in this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri

Sanganabasava B. Patil submits that the appellant-wife

was not served with the notice of the proceedings and

relying on the Xerox copy of the order sheet, submits

that the trial court has noted that the RPAD is returned

5

with shara ‘refused’, but at no point of time the notice

was served on the appellant nor the appellant refused

such notice. However, he submits that assuming that

the app