Wife challenged the Family Court's order permitting her husband and the second respondent to file objections and recall PW-1 after the divorce case was posted for judgment. The High Court declined to interfere, noting the disputed issue of marriage versus live-in relationship, and directed expeditious disposal of the matrimonial case within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:35190 WP No. 23173 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 23173 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHAITRA B. S. W/O. ANIRUDDHA RAO AGE 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.479, 3RD CROSSS, 3RD D MAIN, RP LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2024:KHC:35190 WP No. 23173 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.07.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BANGALORE ON IA NO. 4 AND 5 IN MC NO. 4412/2022 VIDE ANNX-F TO THE WP AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.4 and 5 in M.C.No.4412/2022 by the Court of II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the petitioner-wife is before this Court.
the respondent and when the respondent had failed to appear before the Court, the Court had heard the wife and
posted the matter for judgment on 19.02.2024. When the matter was directed to be listed on 26.02.2024, at that point of time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have come up with I.A.Nos.4 and 5 to file their objections and permit them to cross-examine the petitioner-wife. It is stated by them that during the pendency of the case, the second respondent's father passed away and hence, he could not provide instructions to his counsel to prepare objections statement and the same is opposed by the wife.
wife submits that the sufficient opportunity is given. The
husband failed to avail the opportunities and without any ground, he has come before the Court seeking leave of the Court to file their objections and also to recall PW.1 for cross-examination. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court, without considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, had allowed the applications on cost and the respondents are not entitled to file their objections when the matter is posted for judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:35190 WP No. 23173 of 2024
where the wife seeks divorce saying that there is a marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and
the respondent comes up with an objection that the petitioner is not his wife. In the light of these respective stands taken by the parties, unless and until, there is an adjudication on the merits of it. It is not in the interest of either of the parties. The judgment that is relied on by the petitioner is not arising out of the matrimonial proceedings. It should always be the endeavor of the Court to put an end to the litigation.
reason to interfere with the order. The Matrimonial Case is filed in the year 2022 and it is posted for judgment on 19.02.2024. Now, the matter is directed to be listed for cross-examination of PW.1 on 02.09.2024. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directing the trial Court to dispose of the main M.C. itself as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
NC: 2024:KHC:35190 WP No. 23173 of 2024
order. The trial Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments.
the respondents as no adverse orders are being passed by the Court and disposal of the case is in the interest of both the parties.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of . All IA’s in this writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
KA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court could allow late filing of objections and recall of PW-1 after the matrimonial case was posted for judgment.
Whether interference with the Family Court's order on I.A.Nos.4 and 5 was warranted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Chaitra B. S.
Aniruddha Rao
Bhavyashree Holla
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
