Allowed

Sri Dhananjaya R v. Smt S Chaithra

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WP/21844/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order allowing an amendment to a divorce petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC without reasons. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the application on merits after hearing objections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.08.2023 allowing IA No. VII set aside; matter remanded to trial court to decide IA on merits after hearing objections within two weeks.

Sri Dhananjaya R Vs Smt S Chaithra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33875 WP No. 21844 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 21844 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DHANANJAYA .R. S/O. LATE RAJANNA M., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20/1, 13^TH C CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560079 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1166, 13^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SURESH ISHWARAPPA MUGALAKKI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. S. CHAITHRA W/O. DHANANJAYA R., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.64, 4^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, PANCHASHEELA NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560072.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33875 WP No. 21844 of 2023

¶15

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.55, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, VIGNESHWARA NAGAR, SUNKADA KATTE, BENGALURU-560091

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. HEMACHANDRA R., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 28/08/2023 ON IA NO. 7 U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN M.C. NO. 346/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU PASSED ON 28/08/2023 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2023, whereby the trial Court had allowed an application filed by the wife under Order VI Rule 17, the husband is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

¶24

husband submits that the wife had filed M.C.No.346/2018 seeking divorce. After the evidence had commenced on 25.07.2023, an application is filed under Order VI Rule 17

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33875 WP No. 21844 of 2023

¶26

seeking amendment of the petition, when the matter came up on 28.08.2023, on the said date, by the order impugned, the trial Court had allowed the application without giving any reasons. The trial Court has observed that:-

¶27

The Advocate for the petitioner present and respondent present, but the advocate for the respondent is absent. Sufficient opportunity is given. Objections to I.A.No.VII taken as not filed. Heard and perused. As the proposed amendment is necessary for fair and complete adjudication of the lis. The PW.1 has not been cross examined. The grievance of respondent can be compensated in terms of money and accordingly, on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, the I.A.No.VII is allowed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner further

¶29

submits that the Court cannot pass such an order. No reasonable opportunity is given to the husband to file his objections to the said I.A. and it is submitted that even otherwise, if the Court wants to allow the said application, the Court has to give reasons and pass the order.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33875 WP No. 21844 of 2023

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

¶32

wife submits that in spite of an opportunity given to the husband and as he has failed to place his objections, the Court had allowed I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 17 and there is no illegality with the said order. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The wife who had filed M.C.No.346/2018, seeking divorce and had filed an application under Order VII Rule 17 on 25.07.2023 and on that day, the Court had granted permission to the husband to file his objections. When the matter came up on 28.08.2023, the trial Court had allowed the application solely on the ground that no objections were filed. When the amendment is sought after the trial has commenced, on such application, just because respondent has not filed

¶34

his objection, the Court without giving any reasons, cannot pass such an order. An order that is passed without any

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:33875 WP No. 21844 of 2023

¶37

reasons is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, this court passing the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed . The order dated 28.08.2023 passed on I.A.No.VII in M.C.No.346/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner-husband shall file his objections within two weeks from today and on filing of such objections, the Court shall decide the I.A.No.VII on the merits of it and the order shall be passed on the I.A. within two weeks from thereon.

¶41

(iii) All IAs in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶43

Sri Dhananjaya R v. Smt S Chaithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dhananjaya R v. Smt S Chaithra

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

Sri P S Prakash @ Panchi Vs Sri Jagdguru Murugarajendra

Sri Muniraju Vs Sri T Revanna

Sri Lingaraj M Vs Smt. Sahana R

D Jawahar Vs Mrs.Priya Jose Joshua

Smt. Sowmya Vs Sathisha H.C.

Sri.Krishna Murthy Vs M/S Prabhavathi Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.