IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A.NO.5821 OF 2016 (FC) BETWEEN:
MRS PREETHI B N, W/O A.N.UMESH, D/O M.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 30 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.8/1, 13TH ‘F’ MAIN, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, DOOPANAHALLI INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI AJIT P B, ADVOCATE) AND:
MR UMESH A N, S/O NARAYANAPPA G, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.113/B, MARUTHI NILAYA, 6TH MAIN, B.NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE-560 016. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:15.06.2016 IN M.C.NO.4913/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, GRANTING DECREE OF DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT FILED UNDER SECTION 13(B) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT There is a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
3. This appeal is filed by the wife as against the consent order passed by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, by which divorce by mutual consent has been granted by the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2016 in M.C. No.4913/2015. If the appellant has any grievance as against the said consent decree, she is at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law. Having regard to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, an appeal as against a consent decree is not maintainable.
4. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the appellant to seek her remedy in accordance with law.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. Nos.1/2016 and 2/2016 also stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SJ