Karnataka High Court
Sri.G. Sudhindra Kulkarni vs Smt. B.P.Sreemathi on 1 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
MFA No. 7649 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 7649 OF 2018 (FC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.G. SUDHINDRA KULKARNI,
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT No.4022-B/6,
I MAIN, III CROSS,
GAYATHRI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. ROHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT. B.P.SREEMATHI
KARNATAKA
@ SREENIDHI,
D/O LATE PRANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A No.13/2, 4TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, OKALIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560021.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB
MFA No. 7649 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984 R/W SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.08.2018, PASSED IN MC No.2033/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 5,10,11,12, 29(2) OF THE HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 'DISMISSAL', THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2018 passed by the IV Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the petition filed by the appellant before the Family Court under Sections 5, 10, 11, 12 and 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 has been dismissed.
1 Act -3- NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB MFA No. 7649 of 2018 HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to various pleadings made by the appellant to contend that the respondent was unable to bear a child and therefore, a decree for declaration of nullity of the marriage with the respondent was sought. After filing of the petition aforesaid, the statement of objections was filed by the respondent. However, the petitioner filed a so-called "counter claim application" under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) of CPC. To this so called counter claim, the respondent filed statement of objections stating that the counter claim is irregular and not maintainable in law.
4. During the course of evidence, the petitioner/appellant examined himself as PW1 and got marked 13 documents being Exhibits P1 to P13. The respondent, however, did not appear after filing the objections. Based on the pleadings, the following points arose for consideration of the Family Court.
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for the relief of judicial separation under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for declaration of nullity of his marriage with the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB MFA No. 7649 of 2018 HC-KAR respondent solemnized on 21.01.1991, under section 11 r/w/s 5 of Hindu Marriage Act?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for declaration of nullity of his marriage with the respondent solemnized on 21.01.1991, under section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act?
4. What order?"
4.1 The findings on the above points were as under:
"1. In the Negative
2. In the Negative
3. In the Negative
4. As per the final order"
5. Regarding Point No.1, the Court found that the petitioner was seeking relief on the ground of impotency of the respondent and fraud played by her by suppression of facts. Noting the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the Court held that the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the grounds available therein. Accordingly, the petitioner was held as not entitled for the relief of judicial separation. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB MFA No. 7649 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. As regards Point No.2, Section 11 of the Act speaks of a decree of nullity of the marriage, where certain provisions specified in Section 5 of the Act are contravened. It was noted by the Court that, it is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of his marriage with the respondent, the respondent had a spouse living; or that the petitioner and the respondents are within the degree of prohibited relationship; or that he and the respondent are sapindas. It was therefore held that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of decree of nullity under Section 11 of the Act.
7. As regards Point No.3, the Family Court observed that four grounds are available to seek a decree of nullity in Section 12(1) of the Act. Clauses (b) and (d) were observed to be not relevant to the facts of the case in hand. As regards clauses
(a) and (c), [Clause (c) is wrongly mentioned as clause (d) in the judgment], the Court observed that on a combined reading of the petition averments and the affidavit of the petitioner, it could be gathered that the petitioner was trying to plead impotency of the respondent. He is also trying to allege fraud by stating that these facts were not disclosed to the petitioner -6- NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB MFA No. 7649 of 2018 HC-KAR at the time of marriage, but came to light during the medical treatment given to the respondent after marriage.
8. The Family Court noted that, earlier the petitioner had filed M.C.No.422/2004 against the respondent seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is stated that what is necessary to observe is that the grounds urged and the issues involved in M.C.No.422/2004 and in the case at hand are one and the same. Even the documents produced by the respondent in M.C.No.422/2004 and in the present petition are one and the same. By a judgment dated 28.06.2010, the Family Court disposed of the aforesaid M.C.No.422/2004 on merits. The Family Court noted that co-habitation between the parties was proved and the fact that due to some biological defect, the respondent is unable to conceive or bear a child would not be a ground for grant of divorce under Section 13 of Act. Even other medical drawbacks that were stated to be of the respondent were not such so as to obtain a decree of divorce. It was further noted that the petitioner had not examined any medical expert or doctor who had issued the medical reports.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB MFA No. 7649 of 2018 HC-KAR
9. The respondent had not cross-examined PW1. However, the petitioner had to discharge the initial burden cast upon him. In the previous petition seeking divorce, fraud was alleged for the reason that the original date of birth of the respondent as well as her educational qualification was suppressed. However, in the instant petition, the horoscope and the SSLC marks card of the respondent and her employment card were held to be not relevant documents. It was held that, in M.C. No.422/2004, a finding was recorded that the alleged suppression of original date of birth of the respondent and her educational qualification would not amount to fraud.
10. Even the medical records that were produced by the petitioner were inconclusive to prove the allegation of cruelty. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the marriage had not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent. Failure to prove fraud was also found. It was accordingly held that no decree under Section 12 of the Act could be made.
11. The Family Court noted that various allegations were made by the appellant/petitioner in his pleadings filed before -8- NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB MFA No. 7649 of 2018 HC-KAR the Court. Bad words were used for the respondent which touched on the dignity of womanhood. It was also noticed that contumacious words were used even against the Courts of law and a learned Judge of the High Court. It was held that the attitude of the petitioner showed that he is a cantankerous litigant. The petition was therefore dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
12. Nothing has been pointed out to us that the findings recorded by the Family Court are erroneous or perverse or there is non-application of mind.
13. We have perused the examination-in-chief of the petitioner, which was filed by way of an affidavit. In that affidavit also, vague allegations have been leveled, which also reflect a complete disrespect for womanhood. The allegations made in the affidavit, though may be of some support to the petitioner, however, the same are not conclusive of the facts that any of the grounds available to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act were shown to exist or to be proved. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:49907-DB MFA No. 7649 of 2018 HC-KAR
14. Under the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15