Wife challenged dismissal of her application to reopen her evidence in husband's divorce petition. High Court found her absences frequent but granted one final opportunity to lead evidence on payment of Rs.5,000 costs to husband, directing expeditious disposal.
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:24361 WP No. 3432 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 3432 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MRS.SHILPA PANDURANGA SHET W/O.MR. SANTOSH KURDEKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.11-1-57/EI, JANANI NILAYA COMPOUND, SHIRIBEEDU, UDUPI-576 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR.SANTOSH KURDEKAR S/O.SURESH KURDEKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PRAGATHI COLONY, NEAR BALIGA STORE, GANESH KUNJ, BEJAI, MANGALURU -575 003(DK)
…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2023, ON I.A.NO.VII IN M.C.NO.239/ ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WP).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:24361 WP No. 3432 of 2023
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.VII in M.C.No.239/2021 dated 02.02.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, the petitioner/wife is before this Court.
put to lot of inconvenience and hardship as she has also sought for counter claim.
matter, once again the evidence of the wife was taken as nil and the matter was posted for arguments. Now, the wife has filed the present I.A.No.VII. The Court below had observed that even there are no valid reasons why she was absent on that day except her self serving statement. The Court below observed that in a judicial proceedings, reasonable opportunity is required to be given and in this case, sufficient opportunity is already given but the wife has not utilised the same. Moreover, the Court has to keep in mind the interest of the husband also. At all times, whenever the wife comes up with these kinds of excuses, the same cannot be blindly accepted and the applications cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the Court below had dismissed the application.
she couldn't appear on that day and immediately on the next day, she was present before the Court. It is submitted that on
19.01.2023, she came up with an application. But the Court below had adjourned the matter for objections of the husband. It is submitted that more on technical reasons, the application is dismissed. If she is not permitted to let in evidence, it would cause lot of hardship to the wife and this aspect was not considered by the Court below.
same time, the Court has to consider the plight of the other party also. The husband cannot be eternally made to wait till the wife adduces evidence on her behalf. However, considering the fact that the wife had filed the counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights and it is also pending, this Court is of the view that finally, she is entitled for one more opportunity however on cost. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
as expeditiously as possible.
Pending I.As., if any, shall stand closed.
SD/JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court rightly refused to reopen the wife's evidence after repeated absences in the divorce petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Shilpa Panduranga Shet
Mr. Santosh Kurdekar
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
