Karnataka High Court
MFA/2248/2026 of SRI.ARUN KUMAR Vs SMT.ASHWINI on 10 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:28095-DB MFA No. 2248 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2248 OF 2026 (FC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.ARUN KUMAR S/O VEERESH
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2248 OF 2026 (FC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI.ARUN KUMAR
S/O VEERESH
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING ON CONTRACT BASIS
IN BESCOM DAVANAGERE
R/A HONNURUGOLLAHLATTIL VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK DISTRICT
NOW
R/A NO 220/K V, SRS COLONY,
HADADI ROAD, BAPUJI VIDYANAGAR
DAVANAGERE
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT.ASHWINI
W/O ARUNKUMAR, D/O KEDARMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
GARMENTS WORK
R/O OPPOSITE VEERESH MEEDICAL SHOP
KUKKAWADA VILLAGE,
DAVANAFGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT
…RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2025
PASSED IN MC NO. 342/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE,
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,
1955.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Family Court, Davanagere in M.C.No.342/2023.
2. The appellant claim to be the husband of the respondent. He filed the aforesaid M.C.No.342/2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court on examination of the evidence has come to a conclusion that there is no proof to establish valid marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Except for a few photographs, no evidence either documentary or oral was produced by the appellant to prove that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent
HC-KAR
was solemnized as per the ceremonies mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act. As the appellant failed to prove the valid marriage between him and the respondent, the Family Court has dismissed the M.C.No.342/2023.
3. To claim relief for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties should establish the relationship of husband and wife. If the parties fail to establish one of the valid marriage, no order/relief can be granted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It would be apt to take note of Section 9 of the Act, which reads as under: "9. Restitution of conjugal Rights:- When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. Explanation:-—Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving
HC-KAR
reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.
4. As the appellant has failed to prove the valid marriage, he cannot be the husband of the respondent and therefore, there is no question of granting an order under Section 9 of the Act. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
5. In view dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RKA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6