DUNDAPPA vs SMT.MINAXI W/O DUNDAPPA HANGARAGI

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201254 OF 2018 (FC)

BETWEEN:

DUNDAPPA S/O APPANNA HANGARAGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O C/O B.P. KENCHANAVAR,
BASAVA NAGAR COLONY,
NEAR OLD KEB SUB-STATION,
VIDYAGIRI, NAVA NAGAR, BAGALKOT.

…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMCHANDRA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.MINAXI
W/O DUNDAPPA HANGARAGI,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O PULAKESHI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-585106.

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, AND
SRI. ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATES)







Digitally
signed by
SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018


THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF F.C.ACT, ,
PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYPUR DATED 11.06.2018 IN
M.C.NO.161/2016, BY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT IN M.C.NO.161/2016 U/SEC.13(I-A) AND (I-B) OF
THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE
WITH THE RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the
judgment dated 11.06.2018 passed in M.C.No.161/2016 by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijaypura (for short ‘the Family
Court’).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as
per their ranking before the Family Court. The appellant was
the petitioner and respondent was respondent before the
Family Court.

3. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are as
follows:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018


The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was
solemnized on 14.06.1998 at Kakkayya Samaj Mandir, Gyang-
Bavadi, Viayapura, as per the customs prevailing in their
community. Even prior to the marriage, the petitioner and
respondent were close relatives. It is contended that they led
martial for 2 to 3 months and thereafter the respondent left the
matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. It is
contended that the petitioner has not seen Kumar Prajwal and
he is suspecting of his paternity, because till 2016, the
petitioner has not at all led marital life with the respondent. It
is contended that the respondent is leading an adulterous life
with his father, who is none other than father-in-law of the
petitioner. Hence, the marriage of the petitioner and
respondent has been irretrievably broken down. Hence, the
petitioner constrained to file the petition under Section 13(1) (i-
a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The respondent filed statement of objections denied the
allegations made against the respondent and she has admitted
regarding the marriage with the petitioner. It is contended that
the petitioner has filed a petition in M.C.No.67 of 2015 before

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018


the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot, against the
respondent and he has withdrawn the same without reserving
any liberty to file fresh petition and the petition is not
maintainable as the petitioner and the respondent have led
marital life till 13.10.2025.
Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Family
Court framed the points for consideration. The petitioner in
order to substantiate his pleadings examined himself as PW1,
and examined one witness as PW.2 and 4 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P4. In rebuttal, the respondent examined
herself as RW.1, and examined one witness as RW.2 and
marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
The Family Court after recording the evidence, hearing
both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence,
answered Point No.1 in the negative and point No.2, as per the
final order, and dismissed the petition by judgment dated
11.06.2018. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 11.06.2018
passed in M.C.No.161 of 2016, the petitioner filed this appeal.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018



4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent is having an illicit relationship with his father and
the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is
irretrievably broken down and the said fact has not been
properly appreciated by the Family Court and committed an
error in dismissing the petition. Hence, on these grounds he
prays to allow the appeal.
Per contra
6. , learned counsel for the respondent-wife
submits that the petitioner has made a false allegation against
the respondent. He submits that the father of the petitioner
treats the respondent as his daughter. He also submits that the
petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent has ill-treated
mentally and physically to the petitioner. He submits that the
petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1) (i-a) and
(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty
and the petitioner has failed to prove the same. The Family
Court has rightly dismissed the petition. Accordingly, prays to
dismiss the petition.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018



7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise
for our consideration is;

a. Whether the petitioner proves that the
impugned judgment passed by the Family
Court is perverse and arbitrary?

b. What order or decree?”


8. Point No.1 : There is no dispute regarding the marriage
of the petitioner with the respondent and their marriage was
solemnized as per the customs prevailing in their community. It
is also contended that they have led happy married life for 2 to
3 months from the date of marriage and thereafter the
respondent started residing in her parent’s house. The
petitioner has made an allegation against the respondent
alleging that she is having an illicit relationship with his father.
In order to substantiate the allegation, the petitioner except
oral testimony has not produced any other records to show that
the respondent is having an alleged illicit relationship with her
father-in-law i.e., the father of petitioner. Further the petitioner
has also not produced any records to show that the respondent

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018


has ill-treated physically and mentally. Further, the respondent
examined herself as RW.1 and she has reiterated the written
statement averments in the examination-in-chief and in order
to produce that the petitioner has earlier filed a petition for
divorce in M.C.No.67 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Bagalkot and has withdrawn the said petition without
reserving any liberty to file fresh petition. The respondent
produced the documents at Exs.R1 to R4, wherein it clearly
discloses that the petitioner himself is harassing the respondent
by filing petition after petition and making a false allegation
against the respondent. The Family Court has rightly held that
the petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitled for
dissolution of marriage performed with the respondent on
14.06.1998 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Admittedly,
from the perusal of petition, the petitioner has not raised any
ground with regard to the desertion. The Family Court was
justified in passing the impugned judgment and further the
Family Court has also recorded a finding in paragraph No.34,
which reads as follows:

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018


“Further the petitioner has sought divorce against
the respondent on the ground of desertion. It is
pertinent to note that, the respondent has not left
the matrimonial house and she is residing along with
her son and her father in law. On the other hand the
petitioner has left the house and is staying away
from the respondent. The petitioner has suspected
the paternity of Prajwal born to the respondent, but
during the course of his cross-examination the
petitioner has admitted that, Prajwal is his son.”


9. The petitioner himself has deserted the respondent
without any reasonable costs. Thus, we do not find any error in
the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in
the negative.

10. Point No.2 : Accordingly, we proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
dismissed
a. The appeal is with cost of Rs.50,000/-
payable by the petitioner to the respondent.

b. The petitioner shall deposit the cost of
Rs.50,000/- before the Family Court within one

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11401-DB
MFA No. 201254 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030033912018


month. If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost
within one month, the respondent is entitled to
recover the said amount in accordance with law.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE

MSR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14
CT:SI