IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1968 of 2018 (FC) BETWEEN :
SMT.VEENA.B.R.
WIFE OF NAVEEN KUMAR.M.N. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS C/O.MURALIDHAR.B.R.
R/A FLAT NO.D103 VAISHNAVIRATHNAM APARTMENTS S.M.RAOD, T.DASARAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 057. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.DEEPAK.J.DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.NAVEEN KUMAR.M.N. SON OF NARAYANACHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.160 PADMAM FLATS 22ND ‘A’ MAIN, 1ST CORSS RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 070. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.MADHUSUDAN ADVOCATE FOR V.VISWANATH SHETTY ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS ON MEMO AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU IN M.C.NO.3728/2014 CLUBBED WITH M.C.NO.4315/2014 AND ETC., THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appellant is the wife, while the respondent is the husband. Appellant is aggrieved by order dated 09.01.2018 passed on two memos filed by the respondent – husband.
2. Briefly stated facts are that appellant filed M.C.No.3728/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for the sake of convenience), while respondent – husband filed M.C.No.4315/2014 seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the said Act. Both the petitions were clubbed together. When the matters were pending adjudication, respondent – husband filed two memos : the first memo was for withdrawal of M.C.No.4315/2014, which was permitted to be withdrawn, while the second memo was filed in M.C.No.3728/2014 consenting for divorce to be granted on the petition filed by the appellant - wife. The said memo also has been allowed. Consequently, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent – husband has been dismissed and the petition filed by the appellant – wife seeking for decree of divorce has been granted. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The apprehension expressed by appellant’s counsel is that the conclusion of the matrimonial proceedings may hamper or come in the way of civil suits pending between the parties. He further submitted that there has been no order made with regard to permanent alimony to be awarded to the wife as well as maintenance for the children. Therefore, liberty may be reserved to the appellant to seek those remedies and that the disposal of the matrimonial proceedings may not be an impediment for prosecuting of the suits filed by the appellant against the respondent herein.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and that the appellant could seek appropriate orders for maintenance or prosecute her suits in accordance with law.
6. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to seek permanent alimony as well as maintenance to the minor children and for any other reliefs. The conclusion of the matrimonial proceedings between the parties would not be an impediment or would not come in the way of appellant to prosecute or defend the civil cases pending between the parties.
7. It is made clear that the divorce granted by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, would not be a legal impediment for seeking the reliefs in the suits filed by the appellant herein as those suits were filed by her before the grant of decree of divorce.
8. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VMB