IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR M.F.A.No.560/2017 (MC) BETWEEN 1. SMT SHASHIKALA W/O NARENDRA BABU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK 572132 TUMKUR DISTRICT 2. SRI NARENDRA BABU S/O LATE VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O BHOVI COLONY, K R EXTENSION MADHUGIRI 572132 TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADV.) AND NIL ... RESPONDENT THIS MFA FILED U/S.28(1) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED:01.12.2016 PASSED ON MC NO.135/15 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(B) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT 1. Appellants are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.01.2015. From the wedlock a female child is born. Appellants filed a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) on 07.11.2015 even before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madhugiri, dismissed the petition holding that the petition was premature and was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 13(B)(1) of the Act. It is this order that is under challenge in this appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for appellants.
Learned counsel for appellants rightly submits that having regard to the bar contained in Section 13(B)(1) of the Act, petition for divorce for mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) was not maintainable. He, however, urges that petitioners are now in a position to avail the remedy as the prescribed statutory period has expired. He, therefore, requests this Court to dismiss the petition reserving liberty to appellants to avail the remedy afresh.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for appellants, we are of the view that petition filed under Section 13(B)(1) of the Act has been rightly dismissed by the Court below as the appellants had moved the Court seeking divorce by mutual consent even before the expiry of one year from the date of their marriage.
4. Hence, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to appellants to avail the remedy now open to them in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VP