Remanded

Sri.Duragappa S/O Kolgappa Kukanoor v. Smt.Jayamma W/O Durgappa Kukanoor

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2019WP/108811/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted relief at preliminary hearing in a public interest litigation context regarding matrimonial matters, quashing the order passed by the Family Court for taking objections as not filed. The court criticized the trial court's hurried approach and lack of reasoning, emphasizing the need to allow parties to overcome emotional turmoil before expediting hearings. The matter was remi

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed at the preliminary hearing stage. The impugned order dated 05.11.2018 was set aside and the application remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration.

Sri.Duragappa S/O Kolgappa Kukanoor Vs Smt.Jayamma… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.108811 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI. DURAGAPPA S/O KOLGAPPA KUKANOOR, AGE: ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: OPP. GOVT. BUS STOP, KUNCHIKORAWARA ONI, YALABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRI. LAXMANAREDDY M KURAHATTI, ADV., FOR SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV., FOR PETITIONER)

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT.JAYAMMA W/O. DURGAPPA KUKANOOR, AGE: ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: WARD NO.7, AALAMPUR PETH, ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, HUNAGUND ON INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 151

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

C.P.C., FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C.NO.9/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.1 preferred by the petitioner, who is respondent in M.C.No.9/2018, whereby respondent therein sought for recalling the order dated 26.07.2018 and permit him to prefer objections to the main petition. The Family Court has proceeded to reject the same without assigning any reasons. In fact, it is observed that the order dated 26.07.2018 need not be recalled, as on that day, the Court has not ordered that the objections of the respondent is taken as not filed. It is seen that the Family Court by order dated 20.08.2018 has taken the objections as not filed. No doubt the petitioner might have wrongly typed the date in the application. Even if that be so, the duty of the Court being to administrator justice and complete justice ought not to have adopted such a crude approach, reflective

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

of perverse mind set. The Court could have very well pointed out the error which could have been corrected in the application and could have been dealt with on merits. This Court is constrained to observe so, in view of the petitioner’s counsel consenting for allowing the application on terms. That may not be the sole ground, which could have been the reason for the Court in allowing the application or considering the application on merits.

¶22

It is seen that notice has been issued on 30.05.2018 and on the same day, the counsel for respondent therein has put in appearance and parties have been referred to Mediation Centre by order dated 11.07.2018. The Court, after observing that the mediation report is yet to be received, proceeded to post the matter for hearing without awaiting the report from the Mediation Centre. From 11.07.2018, the matter was adjourned to 26.07.2018 and thereafter to 09.08.2018 and again to 20.08.2018. On 20.08.2018, the Court after observing the absence of the respondent therein and his counsel, has ordered that the objection statement of the respondent is taken as not filed

¶23

: 4 :

¶24

and again proceeded to refer the matter to Mediation Centre, Hungund and thereafter matter was posted to 01.10.2018 and as report was not received, hearing was adjourned to 05.11.2018. On the said day, instant application I.A.No.1 is preferred by the petitioner.

¶25

Even without taking into consideration the fact that the application is made with alacrity and with diligence, i.e., immediately within 15 days of the order, the Court ought to have atleast deigned to appreciate the diligence and also in the light of the fact that the petitioner’s counsel had also consented to allow the application. The sheer hurry in disposing matrimonial matters, would deny an opportunity to the warring parties a chance to patch up. There can be no denial of the fact that in matrimonial matters, the parties would be in an emotional turmoil and it is the duty of the Court to provide an opportunity to the parties to ensure that the parties are able to get over the emotional turmoil and act coherently, as any person in an emotional state would definitely be jumping to conclusions resulting as against the partner.

¶26

: 5 :

¶27

The Trial Courts should keep the above facts in mind before trying to expedite the process of hearing and disposal of the case. The tearing hurry displayed by the Court below cannot be appreciated.

¶28

Hence, writ petition is allowed at the stage of preliminary hearing. The order dated 05.11.2018 is set aside and the application is remitted back to the Trial Court for consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court herein above.

¶29

The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

yan

Sri.Duragappa S/O Kolgappa Kukanoor v. Smt.Jayamma W/O Durgappa Kukanoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Duragappa S/O Kolgappa Kukanoor v. Smt.Jayamma W/O Durgappa Kukanoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. K. Mudagal Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Smt. Eramma W/O Dodda Thippana Vs Smt. Mallamma W/O Late Dodda Basappa @ Basappa

Sri. Muga Basaveshwara S.T.Education Society (R) S Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash H. Hulyal S/O Hullappa P Hulyal Vs Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation

Abdulrasheed S/O Allabax Bawa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Shivappa S/O Ningappa Menasinkai Vs Smt. Parvathi W/O Oshivappa Menasinkai