Dismissed

Smt. Sowmya N v. Sri.Santhosh Kumar C

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/21548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld Family Court order allowing late production of WhatsApp messages in an annulment petition. Court noted delay and lack of affidavit details but dismissed writ petition while imposing costs on husband.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off; Trial Court order upheld; costs of Rs.15,000/- imposed on husband to wife for delay.

Smt. Sowmya N Vs Sri.Santhosh Kumar C — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 21548 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SOWMYA N., W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR C., D/O. NIJJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, JALADINILAYA, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HIRIYUR – 577 598.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NATARAJA B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR C., S/O. CHIDANANDAPPA S.K., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.248, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, MARUTHY LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024.

¶14

(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-E DATED 08.07.2024 PASSED BY THE IVTHADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU IN M.C.NO.612/2022 ON I.A.NO.3 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.3 in M.C. No.612/2022 dated 08.07.2024 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the respondent/wife is before this court.

¶23

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶24

The husband had filed M.C.No.612/2022 seeking the relief that the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 15.03.2021 at Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, as null and void. It is the case of the husband that the wife suffers from an incurable mental condition and that it existing even prior to the marriage. The wife’s family having concealed her condition in order to obtain his consent for the marriage, have committed fraud. If the husband had known about the wife’s mental condition, he would not have given his consent to the marriage. At the stage of further chief examination of the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶27

husband, he had come up with an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to produce the documents, i.e., Whats App exchange between the husband and wife. Whats App exchanged between the husband and the brother-in-law. Whats App exchange between the husband and the sister-in-law. Text messages exchange between the wife and husband. Screenshots of the messages exchanged between the wife and husband via Instagram. In support of the said application it is stated that he had filed a petition under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce. The case is posted for further evidence. By inadvertence, he has not produced the document mentioned in the application along with the petition. Though they form part of the material in respect of allegation made in the petition, hence, they sought permission of the Court to produce the documents. If the documents are not placed on record, it would cause lot of hardship to the husband.

¶28

The objections are filed by the petitioner/wife stating that without any pleading any amount of evidence cannot be entertained. Further, when all these documents are there in

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶31

their custody they should have filed along with the petition and according to them there is no pleading.

¶32

The Family Court had allowed the application by order impugned. While allowing the application, the Trial Court had observed that the judgment that is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Biraji @ Brijraji and another Vs. Surya Pratap and others¹ . In that, evidence of the parties were already adduced and there was also an order of the High Court for expeditious disposal of the main matter and the application therein was filed at the belated stage was dismissed by the Trial Court on that ground. The Family Court had distinguished the facts of this case and held that in this case of the husband had not completed his evidence and the documents were sought to be produced, could not be produced along with the petition due to inadvertence. What had transpired between the husband and wife had been pleaded by the husband in detail and the messages which are exchanged need not be pleaded and on the other hand, the wife would have every opportunity to cross examine the witness as to make out the genuineness

¶33

12020(10) SCC 729

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶36

of the documents which are sought to be produced. Accordingly, the Trial Court had allowed the I.A. filed by the husband. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner/wife is before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife had reiterated the submissions made before the Trial Court and he had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and another² . Relying on this judgment learned counsel submits that such an application could have not been allowed by the Trial Court. He had also relied on the judgment which was relied on before the Trial Court that is in case of Biraji alias Bruraji and another Vs. Surya Prathap and another³ referred to Supra. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court without considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the contention of the wife that application cannot be allowed at that stage and those conversations were nothing to do with the case of the petitioner had allowed the application. It is submitted that had this documents have been filed, had the pleadings have been taken at an earliest stage, he would have got an opportunity to file

¶38

22008 17 SCC 491

¶39

3(2020) 10 SCC 729

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶42

the objections in that regard. The application is allowed at this stage it would cause hardship to the wife.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that in his pleadings he has categorically mentioned about the messages between the wife and the husband. When he is seeking annulment of marriage, all the Whats App messages are very much relevant to establish his case that the health condition of the wife is not normal. He submits that though in so many words they have not stated in the application, it is very much necessary for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the wife, as she would get an opportunity to put forth her case and further, the burden lies on the husband to prove all these documents which he is relying on and they are necessary for the adjudication of the case. The Trial Court had rightly considered the application and passed an order and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The husband had filed a

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶47

petition seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground that the wife is suffering with some incurable disease. In the petition at paragraph No.4 he had stated about the Whats App messages between him and the wife. When the case is coming up for examination of PW1, he has come up with this application to produce the evidence. No doubt, the Whats App messages are very much in the knowledge of the husband even prior to filing of the petition, but he has not chosen to place the same before the Trial Court at an earliest point of time. In the light of the allegations and the dispute between the parties, the conversation which he is relying upon is relevant for deciding the dispute between the parties. This Court had perused the affidavit that is filed in support of the I.A. In that also very vague averments are made. The application should have contained the reasons why they had not filed earlier and how they are relevant, but no such reasons are given in the said affidavit filed in support of the I.A. On the ground that an affidavit is not filed containing with all the details and on the ground that it is filed at a belated stage, this Court cannot reject the application filed by the husband. In a matrimonial proceedings and in considering the kind of disputes/ allegations

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:36474 WP No. 21548 of 2024

¶50

between the parties, those documents are relevant for adjudication of the dispute, but however considering the delay and not mentioning all the reasons in the said affidavit, this court is inclined to impose costs. Hence this Court is passing the following,

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.612/2022 dated 08.07.2024 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is upheld, however this Court is imposing costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the husband to the wife for the delay in filing application.

¶53

ii. The petitioner/wife shall be given an opportunity to put forth her case/objections and raise all the grounds.

¶54

iii. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off .

¶55

iv. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶57

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt. Sowmya N v. Sri.Santhosh Kumar C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sowmya N v. Sri.Santhosh Kumar C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner

One Bangalore West (Towers 1 to 5) Apartment Owners Association Vs M/S Palladium Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Hanumantharaya. H Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Managing Director Vs Krishnegowda

Mrlakshmi Raja Rao Vs Mr Srinanda P

The Managing Director Vs Smt Girija