Partly allowed

Sri Praveen M C., v. Smt. Shashikala Chulaki

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/2458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 challenging the Family Court's dismissal of an amendment application to change the name of an alleged paramour in a matrimonial suit filed on cruelty grounds. The High Court held the amendment essential and allowed the plea while remanding the separate Section 65(B) evidence application for proper framing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order regarding the amendment application set aside and I.A.No.3 allowed; order regarding Section 65(B) application set aside with permission to file appropriate application.

Sri Praveen M C., Vs Smt. Shashikala Chulaki — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22264 WP No. 2458 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.2458 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRAVEEN M C., S/O LATE M CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO 91, ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD NEW BANK COLONY, KONANAKONTE,BENGALURU - 560062

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PATEEL G S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. SHASHIKALA CHULAKI, D/O CHURACHAPPA CHULAKI W/O PRAVEEN M C AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT OPP TO PARK NEAR SHIVALAYA TEMPLE RAMTHIRTHANAGAR BELGAUM CITY -590015

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. J.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN MC NO. 4600/2020 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU CITY AND QUASH THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22264 WP No. 2458 of 2024

¶18

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:20.11.2023 PASSED ON IAs NO. 3 AND 4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC AND U/S 65B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT PASSED BY THE V ADDL. PRL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU CITY IN MC NO. 4600/ VIDE ANNEXURE-E CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATIONS.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.4600/2020 on I.A.No.3 and 4 the petitioner is before this court. I.A.No.3 is filed seeking amendment of the petition by deleting the name of ‘Ramesh’ and inserting the name of ‘Suresh’. I.A.No.4 is filed under Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, to produce certain documents from Sl.No.1 to 7. The court below by order dated 20.11.2023 had dismissed the two applications. Aggrieved there by, the petitioner/husband is before this court.

¶22

The petitioner/husband has filed MC.No.4600/2020 on the ground of cruelty. In the petition it is averred that during December, 2014 when the petitioner verified the call details, sms and whatsapp messages of the respondent in her mobile

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22264 WP No. 2458 of 2024

¶24

phone, he came to know that she was chatting with a boy by name Ramesh using indecent words. In the paragraphs 10 and 11, the name of Ramesh is mentioned in the petition. Now I.A.No.3 is filed seeking amendment of the petition stating that prior to the filing of the petition he met the boy and at that time he told his name is Ramesh, accordingly petitioner mentioned the name in the petition. Recently when he verified the whatsapp account of said boy, his name has been described as ‘Suresh’, along with his photograph, they have come up with this petition. The court below had dismissed the said petition stating that they sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty but not on the ground of adultery and amendment to change the name from ‘Ramesh’ to ‘Suresh’ is not necessary and said amendment is not maintainable.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of mentioning the name as ‘Suresh’, he has mentioned as ‘Ramesh’ in the petition and it is material, such an amendment is very much necessary and the court below had not considered the same. When it comes to the I.A.No.4, for the additional evidence to adduce, there is no application filed, but an application is filed under Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act. The court below had dismissed the same holding that the without filing the certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Indian

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:22264 WP No. 2458 of 2024

¶28

Evidence Act, the present I.A. is filed and accordingly dismissed the same. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act can be produced at any point of time and the court below ought to have allowed the said I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that when the MC is filed seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and now in this I.A.No.3 he is alleging adultery between the respondent and the said Ramesh and for deciding the MC, that amendment is not necessary and family court has rightly dismissed the petition. Then coming to I.A.No.4, he submits that when they wanted to adduce additional evidence, a petition should have been filed for additional evidence and in case such a document require certificate, the same could have been filed. It is submitted that without filing an application, they cannot seek relief from the court.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Coming to the I.A.No.3 seeking amendment of the petition by inserting the name

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22264 WP No. 2458 of 2024

¶32

‘Suresh’ in place of ‘Ramesh’ is very much necessary as the name is mentioned as Ramesh at the time of filing of petition basing on the information gathered. After coming to know that his name is not ‘Ramesh’ but ‘Suresh’, the petitioner filed this petition. The court below had dismissed the petition and held that adultery is not the ground, whether the ground is adultery or cruelty when he had made such averments in the petition and the name is wrongly mentioned court has to consider. At the earliest point of time, when this petition is filed it is necessary that the court should have allowed this petition. Hence, in that view of the matter I.A.No.3 is allowed, permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint.

¶33

Then coming to I.A.No.4 as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, no application is filed for production of additional document and application filed under Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act and court in this order has not elaborately discussed about what are the documents. In that view of the matter, the order as far as I.A.No.4 is set aside. Petitioner is permitted to come up with an appropriate application and on that after considering the objections of the Respondent, the court shall pass appropriate orders.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:22264 WP No. 2458 of 2024

¶36

Accordingly the following order:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.4600/2020 by the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside and consequently I.A.No.3 is allowed.

¶39

ii. The order dated 20.11.2023 passed on I.A.no.4 in M.C.No.4600/2020 by the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to come up with an appropriate application.

¶40

iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶41

Pending I.As., if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri Praveen M C., v. Smt. Shashikala Chulaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Praveen M C., v. Smt. Shashikala Chulaki

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. H. Narayanappa Vs Smt. D. Rajalakshmi

Smt. Ramani Chacko Vs Sri. K. S. Chacko

Mr Naveen T.K Vs Dr (Mrs) Sangeetha Gajanan Bhat

H. Govindappa Vs N. Ravi

Sri Syed Akram Raza Vs Sri P Suhail Ullakhan

Sri C Suresh Reddy Vs Smt Jayamma