ASHWINI vs SHIVARAJ
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 207295 OF 2025 (MC)
BETWEEN:
ASHWINI W/O SHIVARAJ ALANDKAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/ AT HADGIL HARUTI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI- 585103.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABDUL MUQHTADIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHIVARAJ S/O SHIVALINGAPPA ALANDKAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
R/ AT TAJSULTANPUR,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI- 585101.
…RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS DELIVERED AS PER POSTAL TRACK)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND PRELIMINARY DECREE IN M.C.NO.255/2024 PASSED BY
THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT
KALABURAGI DATED 12.09.2025 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL
AND ETC.,
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellant
under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, assailing the
judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed in M.C.No.255/2024 by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, (for short, ‘the
Family Court).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Family Court. The
appellant was the petitioner and respondent was the
respondent.
3. The petitioner filed a petition under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce with
the respondent on the ground of cruelty. It is contended that
their marriage was solemnized on 07.01.2021 at Tajsultanpur
and the said marriage was arranged marriage. At the time of
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
marriage, the parents of the petitioner had given 4 tolas of
gold, household articles and other valuable articles. After the
marriage, the petitioner and the respondent have led a happy
married life for about six months. Thereafter, the respondent
and his family members started ill-treating the petitioner.
Whenever the petitioner questioned their conduct, the
respondent used to make assault upon her mercilessly. He also
tried to kill her for the reasons best known to him. The
respondent used to abuse and assault the petitioner in blue and
black, stating that the marriage has been performed forcibly.
Further, the family members of the respondent also used to
make assault upon the petitioner. The petitioner has undergone
a lot of mental and physical torture in the hands of the
respondent. Thus, a cause of action arose for the petitioner to
file a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, on the ground of cruelty.
4. The Family Court has referred the matter to the
mediation, but the mediation has failed. The respondent filed a
statement of objections denying the allegations made against
him in the petition. It is contended that the respondent is ready
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
to make a separate house for the petitioner if she is willing to
live in a separate house. The respondent is working as a driver
of autorickshaw of others on a rent basis. He is earning
Rs.500/- per day and within his earnings, he is required to pay
the house rent and also look after his old-aged parents, who
are suffering from old age ailments. The respondent is ready to
take back the petitioner and lead a happy marital life. Hence,
prays to dismiss the petition.
5. The petitioner to substantiate her case examined
herself as PW.1 and got marked 3 documents Exs.P.1 to P3. In
rebuttal, the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and no
documents were marked. The Trial Court after recording the
evidence and hearing both sides, framed the following points
for consideration:
“1) Whether the petitioner proves that the
respondent has treated her with cruelty?
2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce
decree?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent
alimony?
4) What order?”
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
6. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on
record, answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and
consequently, dismissed the petition by its judgment dated
12.09.2025. The petitioner aggrieved by the said judgment
passed in M.C.No.255/2024 has preferred this appeal under
Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act.
7. Notice was issued to the respondent. Despite
service of notice, the respondent remained unrepresented.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced
by the petitioner. He submits that the respondent and his
family members ill-treated the petitioner. Further, the evidence
of PW.1 was sufficient to hold that the respondent has ill-
treated her. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial
Court is arbitrary and erroneous. He prays to set aside the
judgment passed by the Trial Court and consequently, allow the
appeal filed by the petitioner.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
10. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points
that would arise for our consideration is:
i) Whether the petitioner has proved that the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is
without appreciation of evidence and is perverse
and arbitrary?
ii) What order?
Point No.1:
11. The petitioner filed the petition under
Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of
the marriage on the ground that the respondent was ill-treating
the petitioner mentally and physically. It is also contended that
the respondent and his family members were demanding
additional dowry a nd the petitioner did not accede to their
unlawful demands. The petitioner, in order to substantiate her
case, examined herself as PW.1. She reiterated the petition
averments in the examination-in-chief and produced Ex.P.1,
the marriage invitation card, which discloses that the marriage
of the petitioner was performed with the respondent on
07.01.2021 at Tajsultanpur, opposite to the house of the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
respondent as per the rites and customs prevailing in their
community and produced the photographs, which are marked
as Exs.P.2 and P.3.
12. During the course of cross-examination, it was
suggested that the police had called both the petitioner and the
respondent to the police station. She admitted that the
respondent has made a statement before the police that he is
ready and willing to take the petitioner back and lead life with
her. On the contrary, the petitioner herself has not joined the
company of the respondent. The petitioner has clearly stated
that she is not ready to live with the respondent. She has also
admitted during the cross-examination that the respondent and
his parents and Arjun had come to her parents' house for
holding a panchayat to bring her back. However, she has
denied that her parents did not send her to a matrimonial
home. Further, she also stated in the cross-examination that
she has not read over the contents of the petition and her
affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief.
13. On the contrary, the petitioner herself has made an
allegation against the respondent stating that the neighbors
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
have informed the petitioner that the respondent has killed her
first wife. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any
records to show that the respondent has killed his first wife.
14. In rebuttal, the respondent examined himself as
RW.1 and reiterated the averments made in the statement of
objections in his examination-in-chief. However, he did not
produce any documentary evidence and no documents were
marked on his behalf. He admitted that he had earlier married
one Shilpa and she had died due to a heart attack. However, he
denied the remaining suggestions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
15. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that
the petitioner has made an allegation against the respondent
that, the respondent has demanded an additional dowry and he
was harassing the petitioner mentally and physically. However,
except for the oral testimony of PW.1, the petitioner has not
examined any independent witnesses or neighbours to
demonstrate that the respondent has ill-treated the petitioner
physically and mentally. The cruelty is not defined with a ligid
of fixed meaning under the Hindu Marriage Act, the records
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
clearly disclose that the petitioner has failed to prove that the
respondent has ill-treated her physically and mentally. If the
respondent has ill-treated her physically and mentally, the
petitioner has not made any attempt to lodge a complaint
against the respondent. The cruelty must be grave and
substantial normal wear and tear of married life, petty quarrels
do not constitute cruelty. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
1
Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh held that no uniform standard
regarding proof of cruelty can be laid down and each case will
have to be decided on its own facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court
also emphasized that cruelty must be grave and not mere
trivial irritations of normal wear and tear of married life. The
petitioner has made allegation in the petition but has not
produced any records to corroborate the contents of the
petition. The trial Court, considering the entire evidence on
record, has rightly recorded its finding that the petitioner has
failed to prove that the respondent has ill-treated her physically
and mentally and has rightly passed the impugned judgment.
1
(2007) 4 SCC 511
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11855-DB
MFA No. 207295 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030140032025
16. In view of the above discussion, we answer point
No.1 in the Negative.
17. Point No.2 , We proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by
the petitioner to the respondent within a
period of two months, failing which, the
respondent is entitled to recover the said
amount as a land revenue by due process of
law.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
AMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
Ct:pk