SRI T H CHETAN KUMAR vs SMT S R SHWETHA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8682/2022(MC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T H CHETAN KUMAR,
S/O T G HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O NO.160, HPO & RMS LAYOUT,
SAKTINAGAR, MYSORE-29.
NOW RESIDING AT PUJANAHALLI,
DEVANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
DISTRICT: BENGALURU RURAL-562 110.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DESHRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. S R SHWETHA,
W/O T. CEHTAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O SAGAVATAVALLI VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA.T.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.09.2022 PASSED IN M.C.NO.90/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
The respondent-husband has approached this Court,
calling into question the judgement dated 30.09.2022, whereby
the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna,
Hassan ( ‘Family Court’ ), in M.C. No. 90/2019,has allowed the
petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu
‘HM Act’
Marriage Act, 1955 ( ), thereby granting the decree for
restitution of conjugal rights.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per
the rankings assigned to them before the Family Court.
3. Before we proceed, we note that the respondent
had also instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
Act, which came to be numbered as M.C.No.104/2020 (Old
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
M.C.No.860/2018), wherein the Family Court had dismissed the
petition, vide order dated 30.09.2022. Against that judgement,
the respondent has preferred a separate appeal in M.F.A. No.
8431/2022. Since M.F.A. No. 8431/2022 arises out of a
separate proceeding, we have disposed of M.F.A. No.
8431/2022 in a separate judgement.
I. FACTS OF THE PETITIONER:
4. The facts of the petitioner would be that she and
the respondent have solemnised their marriage on 09.04.2017,
after which they have resided together only for about 20 days
and their relationship was cordial during this time. Thereafter,
when the respondent travelled to Dubai, on account of his
employment, the respondent’s mother would quarrel with the
petitioner over petty issues and began forcing the petitioner’s
father to transfer property to the name of the respondent. The
petitioner states that she was made to work like a servant and
was told she was not from a family of adequate standard. On
account of such differences, the petitioner was forced out of the
matrimonial home on 13.09.2018.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
5. In November 2018, the parties had attempted to
reconcile. However, in December 2018, the respondent
instituted a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the
HM Act, which is numbered as M.C. No. 104/2020. As the
petitioner was always willing to resume matrimonial obligations,
she filed the present petition for restitution of conjugal rights
under Section 9 of the HM Act, which came to be numbered as
M.C. No. 90/2019.
II. FACTS OF THE RESPONDENT:
6. On the other hand, the facts of the respondent
would be that after the respondent travelled to Dubai, on
account of his employment, petitioner was not forthcoming to
secure a job along with him in Dubai. Instead, the petitioner
had left the matrimonial home at Mysuru and started to reside
with her parents at Channarayapatna. The respondent states
that he had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the
petitioner and asked her to resume cohabitation, which were all
unsuccessful. He further alleges that, on occasions when his
parents were ill and required hospitalisation, the petitioner
refused to take care of them. The respondent further alleges
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
that the petitioner threatened his parents that she would
consume poison and implicate them, removed her jewellery and
belongings from the matrimonial home in mid-2018.
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT:
7. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the
Family Court proceeded to record the evidence of the parties.
The petitioner has deposed herself as PW-1 and marked 3
documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. On the other hand, the
respondent has deposed himself as RW-1, one Smt. Latha as
RW-2, and got marked 20 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R20.
8. On consideration of the rival contentions, the Family
Court has observed that the relationship between the parties
was largely cordial and that the primary grievances which had
arisen in the matrimonial relationship were on account of
certain differences between the petitioner and the respondent’s
parents, particularly when the respondent was away from the
matrimonial home on account of his employment in Dubai. The
Family Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had
expressed her willingness to make another attempt at
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
reconciliation and to resume matrimonial life with the
respondent. As such, the Family Court noted that there are
chances of reconciliation and ordered for restitution of conjugal
rights in favour of the petitioner.
IV. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
9. Being aggrieved by this order of the Family Court,
the respondent has preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
10. We have heard Shri.Deshraj, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/husband, who would contend that
the Family Court failed to consider that the petitioner had left
the matrimonial home without any reason. According to the
respondent, the Family Court failed to consider that the
petitioner had instituted a complaint dated 02.01.2019 and
another complaint dated 10.10.2021 against the respondent
and his parents on the allegation of dowry harassment; and
that the petitioner had attempted to perform black magic upon
the respondent, all of which would amount to mental cruelty
upon the respondent.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
11 . Per contra , we have heard Shri. Nagendra T,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife, who has
supported the judgement of the Family Court on all its fours
and has prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.
V. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the parties
and on a careful perusal of the material placed before us, the
only point that arises for our consideration is:
“Whether the respondent has made out any
grounds to interfere with the order passed by
the Family Court?”
VI. REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
13. On consideration of the material on record, it is
seen that the crux of the allegations levelled by the respondent
against the petitioner arises out of certain differences between
the petitioner and the respondent’s parents during the period
when the respondent was working in Dubai and was away from
the matrimonial home.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
14. It is also evident from the material on record that
whenever the respondent returned to India and resided with
the petitioner, the relationship between the parties was cordial.
In this regard, the respondent himself has deposed that during
the first 20 days of the marriage, when the parties were
residing together, there were no serious issues between them.
The Family Court had also noted that the evidence of the
respondent that the differences arose when he had gone back
to Dubai on account of his employment.
15. Thereafter, when the respondent returned to India
in February 2018, the parties visited several temples together
and, according to the respondent himself, their relationship
remained cordial. The respondent thereafter returned to Dubai,
during which time the differences between the parties are
stated to have cropped up again.
16. It is also relevant to note that when the respondent
returned to India in November 2018, an attempt at
reconciliation was made in the presence of the family members
of both parties. It is the case of the petitioner that during such
reconciliation, the respondent had agreed to take her back to
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
the matrimonial home. The fact that such an attempt at
reconciliation was made is also indicative of the fact that the
differences between the parties were not of such a nature as to
render the matrimonial relationship incapable of being restored.
17. Further, the respondent has contended that the
petitioner had instituted two complaints on the allegation of
dowry harassment. These are the complaint dated 02.01.2019,
filed against the respondent, before the Women Police Station,
Mysore; and the complaint dated 10.10.2021, filed against the
respondent and his parents, before the Channarayapatna Rural
Police Station. The respondent alleges that these two
complaints were false, however, the respondent has failed to
place any material on record to establish that these complaints
are false. In the circumstances of the present case, we refuse
to hold that the mere filing of complaints by the petitioner
would give reasonable cause to the respondent to withdraw
from the society of the petitioner.
18. We have also considered the evidence of RW-2. Her
evidence assumes significance in the context of the allegation
made by the respondent that the petitioner had failed to take
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
care of his mother when she was hospitalised. RW-2 has stated
that during the period when the respondent’s mother was
hospitalised, she was taken care of by the petitioner along with
the elder daughter-in-law of the respondent’s parents. The said
evidence does not support the allegation that the petitioner had
completely neglected the respondent’s mother.
19. The respondent has also relied upon the evidence of
RW-2 to state that the petitioner had attempted to perform
black magic upon the respondent. However, apart from the
deposition of Smt. Latha, there is no documentary evidence
placed before us to establish that the petitioner had indeed
conveyed such a message to Smt. Latha. In the absence of any
such convincing material, we are constrained to hold that this
ground urged by the respondent does not survive. Further,
from the deposition of Smt. Latha herself it could be seen that
the differences between the petitioner and the respondent
arose out of minor issues.
20. The aforesaid circumstances, when considered
cumulatively, indicate that the differences between the parties
were primarily on account of certain matrimonial disputes
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
between the petitioner and the respondent’s parents. The
evidence on record does not disclose any serious or
irreconcilable dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent themselves which would constitute a reasonable
cause for the respondent to withdraw from the society of the
petitioner.
21. It is well settled that every matrimonial relationship
is likely to have its share of differences, disagreements and
1
misunderstandings. In N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Court should not
attach undue importance to the trifles, which may arise on
account of the normal wear and tear of a matrimonial life. It is
in the context of such trivialities that one says that spouses
take each other for better or worse.
22. Further, the petitioner has expressed her
willingness to resume matrimonial life with the respondent. The
willingness expressed by the petitioner assumes significance
when considered alongside the respondent’s own evidence that
the parties shared a cordial relationship whenever they resided
1
(1975) 2 SCC 326.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
together. The existence of differences at certain points of time
cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the matrimonial
relationship cannot be continued.
23. Matrimonial life requires mutual understanding,
adjustment and a willingness to resolve differences. The law
does not expect a matrimonial relationship to be free from all
disagreements. What is required to be examined is whether the
differences between the parties were sufficient to justify one
spouse withdrawing from the society of the other.
24. In the present case, the cordial relationship
between the parties during the periods when they lived
together, the attempt at reconciliation and the petitioner’s
willingness to resume matrimonial life must be considered
cumulatively. These circumstances do not support the
respondent’s contention that he had sufficient reason to
continue living separately from the petitioner.
25. The parties are required to look beyond such
trivialities in matrimonial life. What may appear to be a
disagreement at one point of time may, with passage of time
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
and mutual understanding, be resolved. The Court, while
considering the matrimonial relationship, must therefore have
regard to the overall circumstances and cannot permit the
ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life to become the basis
for bringing the relationship to an end.
26. In the light of the above observations, we hold that
the respondent has failed to prove that he had reasonable
cause to withdraw from the society of the petitioner. The
differences relied upon by the respondent are in the nature of
ordinary matrimonial differences and do not constitute a
reasonable excuse within the meaning of Section 9 of the HM
Act.
27. We, therefore, find no infirmity with the well-
considered order passed by the Family Court. The respondent
has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with
the order impugned in the present appeal.
28. Accordingly, the present appeal is ordered as
follows:
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47406-DB
MFA No. 8682 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010594622022
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 30.09.2022 passed in M.C.No.90/2019 by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna,
Hassan.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11