SMT. NETHRA vs SRI. JAYASIMHA

- 1 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

th
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10597 OF 2018 (FC)



BETWEEN:

1. SMT. NETHRA
D/O LATE. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ST
NO.83, 1 MAIN ROAD,
ND
2 CROSS, JAKKUR LAY-OUT,
BENGALURU - 560 064.

…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR B. A., ADVOCATE)









AND:

1.
SRI. JAYASIMHA
S/O LATE. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.26, VI MAIN ROAD,
TH
6 CROSS, PILLAPPA BLOCK,
GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAFULL KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)


Digitally
signed by
RAKSHA
Location:
high
court of
karnataka


THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

- 2 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


DATED 29.09.2018 IN MC.NO.1603/2011 ON THE FILE OF VI
ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.10.2026 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
K.S.BHARATH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR)

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal
assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2018,
passed by the VI Addl.Prl.Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru,
(hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court'), in
M.C.No.1603/2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that :
The appellant and respondent are wife and husband.
Their marriage was solemnised on 23.02.2003 at
Gajanana Seva Mandali, HMT Layout, Ganganagar,
Bengaluru, as per Hindu customs. Out of their wedlock,
three children were born. After the marriage, the

- 3 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


respondent/husband came to know that the appellant/wife
was a short tempered woman and she used to pick up
quarrel with him. Further, she was in the habit of going
over to her parents house every now and then. As a result
of the appellant's strange behaviour, the
respondent/husband was subjected to physical and mental
agony.
3. It is further the case of the respondent/husband
that on 22.02.2006, he had purchased a site and
thereafter, by raising a housing loan, constructed a four
floored house on the said site and the appellant/wife is
residing in the said house along with the children and her
mother. The respondent/husband had provided all
comforts to the appellant/wife and their children in the
said house and further the appellant/wife is also receiving
monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- from the said house, which is
being used by her to maintain herself and their children.

4. It is further the case of the Respondent/husband
that, he had gifted the said house in favour of the
Appellant/Wife. However, she continued to torture him

- 4 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


over trivial reasons she continuously harassed the
Respondent/husband both physically and mentally.
Hence, having no other alternative, the
Respondent/husband filed a petition under Section
13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short,
`Hindu Marriage Act'), seeking a decree of divorce by
dissolving the marriage solemnised between the
Respondent/husband and the Appellant/wife.

5. Pursuant to the service of notice, the
Appellant/wife entered appearance before the Family Court
and filed her statement of objections. She has denied all
the allegations made by the Respondent/husband. It is
contended that the Respondent/husband had purchased
the said site from the income of the Appellant/wife and
registered the same in his name as the bank could not
sanction loan in her name. It is further contended that
two houses are let out at the rent of Rs.2,000/- per month
and other two houses are mortgaged by the
Respondent/husband and out of total rent of Rs.4,000/-,

- 5 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


an amount of Rs.2,000/- is being paid towards water
charges and Rs.600/- towards electricity charges.

6. It is further contended that, since the
respondent/husband has failed to pay the installments
towards the loan, the bank officials are demanding the
appellant/wife to pay the loan amount or to vacate the
house. It is further contended that the
respondent/husband has completely neglected her and the
children and also she is not getting the monthly rent of
Rs.15,000/- as contended by the respondent/husband. It
is also stated that she had never tortured the
respondent/husband as contended by him.

9. The appellant/wife subsequent to filing her
objections to the main petition, filed an application -
I.A.No.5 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
seeking interim maintenance and upon considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court vide
order dated 03.01.2013, directed the respondent/husband

- 6 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards interim maintenance
to the wife and their children.

10. The respondent approached this Hon’ble Court
challenging the quantum of maintenance in Writ Petition
No.4931/2013 and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
19.03.2013, was pleased to uphold the quantum of interim
maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

11. In M.C.No.1603/2011, the Family Court based on
the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :
i) Whether the petitioner proves that he was
subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent?

ii) Whether the petitioner further proves that
the respondent has dese
rted him immediately two years preceding the
presentation of the petition?

iii) What order?

12. During the pendency of the matter, the Family
Court referred the matter to mediation multiple times and
ultimately, the parties entered into a Settlement
Agreement before the mediation centre on 17.09.2013

- 7 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


and the same was signed by both the parties. The
respondent as per the terms of the settlement agreement
paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in cash to the appellant and
further the respondent was required to pay a sum of
Rs.13,50,000/- on or before 05.03.2014, however the
respondent after a belated period i.e., on 01.09.2016, had
produced the demand drafts towards the payment of the
said sum, however, the same were returned by the
appellant stating that they were about to expire.

13. After considering the pleadings and evidence on
record and the documents produced before the Court, the
Family Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, and
granted the decree of divorce. Being aggrieved by the
same, the appellant/wife has filed this appeal.

14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of both parties and perused the materials on record.

15. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant/wife that, the

- 8 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


respondent/husband has failed to comply the terms of the
settlement entered into between them before the
mediation on 17.09.2013. It is further contended that the
respondent/husband subsequent to settlement between
the parties had paid Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash and
never came forward to fulfil the balance payment of
Rs.13,50,000/-. It is also contended that
respondent/husband subjected the appellant to physical
and mental cruelty and also cheated her. On these
grounds, the learned counsel prays to allow the appeal
and to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
Family Court.
16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/husband contended that, subsequent to their
marriage, appellant never stayed with him peacefully and
she used to pick up quarrel with him. It is further
contended that the appellant tortured him both physically
and mentally. It is also submitted that he is taking care of
his wife and children and the monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-
is being used by the appellant.

- 9 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018



17. It is contended that, for the balance amount of
Rs.13,50,000/-, the respondent had paid the same by way
of cheques. It is further contended that the wife never
placed those cheques for encashment on the ground that
they were about to expire. It is further contended that
again on 18.08.2013, the cheques were issued for the
balance amount of Rs.13,50,000/- and the same were
accepted by the appellant/wife. However, on 21.08.2014,
the appellant had returned those cheques and sought for
demand drafts.
18. It is further contended that the appellant did not
accept the demand drafts since the same were about to
expire, as a result, the respondent took back the same for
encashment. It is further contended that since the
appellant failed to accept the cheques and demand drafts,
the balance amount of Rs.13,50,000/- remained unpaid to
the respondent.

19. It is seen from the records that the
respondent/husband was always ready and willing to

- 10 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


comply with the terms and conditions of the said
agreement. It is the appellant/wife who has not
cooperated with him in encashing the said cheques and
the demand drafts submitted by the respondent/husband
towards fulfillment of the conditions of the agreement.
Since the appellant/wife has entered into an agreement
with the respondent/husband and got the matter settled
before the mediation and thereby failed to co-operate with
the petitioner husband to execute the terms and
conditions of the agreement, the learned Family Judge has
rightly come to the conclusion that the act of the
appellant/wife clearly shows that she has continuously
harassed the respondent/husband even prior to filing of
the petition and also after filing of the petition before the
Family Court.

20. As stated supra, the respondent/husband and the
appellant/wife have entered into a settlement before the
mediation. If at all the respondent/husband has not
complied with the terms of the said settlement, the
remedy for the appellant is not to challenge the judgment

- 11 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


and decree passed by the Family Court. On the other
hand, it is for the appellant to take recourse to enforcing
the said agreement entered into between the parties
before the mediation.

21. Since the appellant/wife has continuously
harassed the respondent/husband subsequent to the
settlement entered into between the parties before the
mediation, we do not find any error in the findings and
conclusions arrived at by the learned Family Judge and in
granting a decree of divorce.

22. It is also seen from the records that, as per the
settlement entered into between the parties before the
mediation, the respondent/husband has not paid the
balance amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. Since the present case
is a matrimonial dispute, in the interest of justice, we
deem it appropriate to direct the respondent/husband to
pay the said balance amount of Rs.13,50,000/- as per the
settlement entered into between the parties before the
mediation along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a.

- 12 -
MFA No.10597 of 2018


23. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated
29.09.2018, passed by the VI Addl.Prl.Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.1603/2011,
stands confirmed.
(iii) The respondent/husband is directed to
pay the balance amount of Rs.13,50,000/- to the
respondent/wife along with interest at the rate of
10% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date
of realisation.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of .

Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(K.S.BHARATH KUMAR)
JUDGE






bk/