LAXMI D/O NARAYAN GIDDI vs MANJUNATH S/O RAMAPPA KANNI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101276 OF 2026 (FC)
BETWEEN:
LAXMI D/O NARAYAN GIDDI
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. BIDNAL, HUBBALLI,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DURGAD ONI,
UNKAL HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S K HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANJUNATH S/O RAMAPPA KANNI
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE,
ND
R/O. 2 CROSS, BIDNAL,
LAXMI NAGAR, BIDNAL,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
K M
SOMASHEKAR
Digitally signed by
K M SOMASHEKAR
Date: 2026.10.17
16:03:04 +0530
(BY SRI. RAKSHIT M. NEELAKANTHANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT 1984 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE
COURT BELOW AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2025 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI IN M.C. NO.140/2024
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT TO MEE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
01.04.2025 passed in M.C.No.140/2024 by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as
‘Family Court’) the respondent-wife therein has preferred
this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status before the Family Court.
3. Petitioner claiming to be the husband of
respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking restitution
of conjugal rights with a prayer to direct the respondent to
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
join his company to lead marital life. He has contended
that he and the respondent got married on 16.05.2010 at
his residence at Adagal village of Badami Taluk, Bagalkot
District as per Hindu rites and customs before the family
members and elders of both sides.
4. To prove his case, he has examined himself as
PW1 and two others as PW2 and 3 and has got marked
Ex.P1 to P13. Of the said exhibits, Ex.P1 is the wedding
card, Ex.P2 is the reception photograph of petitioner and
respondent, Ex.P3 and P4 are the photographs showing
the petitioner and respondent being together with the
respondent-wife wearing Mangalsutra. Ex.P5 is the
election ID card of the respondent,. Ex.P7 is the pass book
of respondent. Ex.P8 is the loan card of the respondent.
Ex.P9 and 10 are the Voter’s list, all of which indicate that
respondent is the wife of the petitioner.
5. The case of the respondent/appellant herein is
that she never got married to the petitioner and all the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
documents produced by him are concocted. To prove her
case, she examined herself as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1
to R5, which are as follows:
“Ex.R1. : Copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.R2. : Copy of Election ID Card
Ex.R3. : Copy of School Transfer Certificate
Ex. R4. : Copy of SSLC Marks Card
Ex. R5. :Copy of Study Certificate”
6. In the evidence, it is admitted that the Aadhaar
card and the election ID card produced by the respondent
are subsequent to the date of the documents produced by
the petitioner. These two documents do not indicate that
respondent is married to the petitioner and indicate her
maiden name.
7. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in,
the Family Court framed the following points for
consideration:
1. Whether petitioner proves that, the respondent
willfully left him without any lawful and
reasonable cause as alleged?
2. Whether petitioner proves that, though he
made several requests, the respondent has
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
refused to join the matrimonial home to lead a
marital life?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief of
restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for?
4. What Order?
and has answered the above points as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 :As per the final Order for
the following:
Accordingly, the following impugned order has been
passed:
“ORDER
“The petition filed by petitioner under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is hereby
allowed.
The respondent is directed to come and join
the company of petitioner to lead marital life,
within two months from the date of this order.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.”
8. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
9. The case of the respondent-wife is that all the
documents relied upon by the petitioner are concocted and
the Family Court erred in relying upon the said documents
and came to an erroneous consideration that the petitioner
and respondents are married.
10. It is also the main defence of the respondent
before the Family Court that there was no marriage
between petitioner and respondent, and that the Family
Court did not frame any point for consideration in this
regard and on this ground alone the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the Family Court is liable to be set
aside. For the aforementioned reasons, it is prayed that
the impugned judgment and decree in M.C. No.140/2024
be set aside.
11. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner justifies
the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree
shows that though the Family Court failed to frame a point
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
for consideration on the issue whether the petitioner and
respondent therein were married or not. It has however, in
the course of its judgment has examined the necessary
evidence adduced by both the contesting parties in this
regard and has come to the conclusion that both the
parties were in fact married. Under the said
circumstances, in our opinion, interest of justice would be
met, if it is considered, whether the Family Court, based
on the pleadings and the evidence let in before it, has
rightly come to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner
and respondent got married as contended by the petitioner
therein or not.
13. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he
and respondent got married on 16.05.2010 at Adagal
Village, Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District. He has produced
a wedding card as Ex.P1 in this regard. He has also
produced Ex.P2 which is a reception photo, and Exs.P3
and P4 are photos that show petitioner and respondent
being together and the respondent is wearing a
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
Mangalasutra. Though necessary certificate as
contemplated under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is
not produced, by virtue of Section 14 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, the Family Court is competent to receive such
photographs as evidence. The party relying on the same
should be able to prove under the circumstances that the
said document is believable.
14. In the instant case, in addition to the said
photograph, the petitioner has also produced Election ID
card pass book, loan card and voter list of the respondent,
which all goes to prove that the respondent was indeed his
wife.
15. Once the petitioner has produced the
aforementioned documents and they are believable, the
onus of disproving the same shifts on the respondent.
Admittedly, the Aadhaar card and the election ID card
produced by the respondent/appellant herein came into
existence at a later point of time, they do not have the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
effect of disproving the documents produced by the
petitioner.
16. In the course of the arguments, it is also
submitted that the respondent preferred O.S.No.317/2023
before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Hubballi
wherein the petitioner and NWKRTC were the defendants
and she prayed for a decree of permanent injunction
restraining defendant No.1 therein (her husband) from
disturbing and harassing the plaintiff in suit premises and
also in her residential premises. In the said suit, a specific
contention was taken by the respondent that the
petitioner, on false allegation that he is her husband, was
harassing her. In the said suit, the respondent also
preferred an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for interim relief against the
petitioner, which was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Thereafter, the original suit itself has been dismissed for
non-prosecution.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
17. The records also reveal that one of the main
contentions by the respondent/appellant herein is that she
was not married to the petitioner and she got employed in
NWKRTC on compassionate grounds upon the death of her
father.
18. Admittedly, the petitioner has relied upon the
photographs, wedding invitation card, Voter ID, bank pass
book and the loan card of respondent, which indicate that
the respondent is the wife of the petitioner. It is the
specific contention of the respondent that the said
documents are concocted, forged and fabricated. However,
when questioned, the counsel for the respondent
submitted that no police complaint has been filed against
the petitioner for such a concoction, fabrication or forgery
of the said documents nor has she given any complaint to
any of the authorities mentioned.
19. Under the said circumstances, in our opinion,
the trial Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner and
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16945-DB
MFA No. 101276 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020067312026
respondent were indeed married on 16.05.2010 as averred
by the petitioner. On the evidence let in by the petitioner,
the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the
respondent without any valid reason has left his company.
Hence, it has decreed the suit by passing an order of
restitution of conjugal rights. We do not see any error in
the same.
20. For the aforementioned reasons the appeal is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:CNB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17