Dismissed

Sri Akhilesh B R v. Mrs Sapna

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024WP/4320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition under Article 227, the husband challenged the Family Court's order allowing the wife to recall a witness and submit additional evidence in a divorce proceeding. The High Court found no jurisdictional error or prejudice to quash the order, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the challenged interim order allowing evidence production was upheld.

Sri Akhilesh B R Vs Mrs Sapna — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14845 WP No. 4320 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 4320 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. AKHILESH B.R., S/O RATHNAKARA B.V., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT 'SHREE NILAYA', RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PUTTUR - 574 201, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MRS. SAPNA, W/O AKHILESH B.R., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT 5-181, 'NAMANA', RAJATHAGIRI, SUBHASNAGARA, KURKALU, UDUPI, KARNATAKA - 574 105, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:14845 WP No. 4320 of 2023

¶18

IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 09/02/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT UDUPI IN MC NO. 59/2022 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.15 to 17 dated 09.02.2023, the husband is before this court.

¶22

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

¶23

M.C.No.59/2022 is filed by the wife seeking

¶24

divorce, at the stage of arguments, wife had come up with these petitions. The wife had stated certain aspects regarding the Bio-data of the husband and WhatsApp chat

¶25

between the wife and husband were confronted to the husband and were submitted before the court by a memo dated 13.12.2022 and 07.01.2023 and other consequent questions have to be put to the husband. It is stated that the wife has a genuine case and it is utmost important to produce the documents pertaining to the said aspect that

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14845 WP No. 4320 of 2023

¶27

are already before the court vide memo dated 13.12.2022 and 07.01.2023 to prove the same and hence, prayed the

¶28

court below to allow those applications and mark them as exhibits.

¶29

4. The husband has filed his objections to the

¶30

same wherein it is stated that sufficient opportunity was given to the wife for the examination and now there is no need to recall or reopen for further examination. Earlier when it was reopened and recalled they did not mark the documents. The documents are irrelevant and do not contain any weightage to prove the merits of the case and the memo dated 07.01.2023 is a Bio-data of the husband, which is fabricated by the wife and she has no right to give certificate under Section 65B of the Act as she has not received any messages from the respondent or his father or mother and that there is no mention of Bio-data in the main petition. Hence, they sought the court below to dismiss the petition.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14845 WP No. 4320 of 2023

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶33

submits that when the entire evidence was led and the

¶34

matter was posted for arguments, at this stage this application to recall, reopen and to mark the further production of documents cannot be entertained. It is submitted that the court below while allowing this application has cited the very reasons and failed to consider any of the grounds that are raised by the husband. He submits that the order would cause prejudice to the husband and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

¶36

wife submits that by way of a memo earlier the WhatsApp chat between the husband and the wife, the WhatsApp chat between the wife and her mother were filed. During the course of cross examination, the court has observed that evidence can be adduced at the time of her examination. It is submitted that if these documents are not placed before the court and the same are not taken into consideration, it will cause lot of prejudice to the wife.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14845 WP No. 4320 of 2023

¶38

The court below considering these aspects has rightly allowed the application and further it is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the husband.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel on either side

¶40

perused the material on record. Particularly this court has perused the I.A. filed by the wife and the objections filed by the husband. The sum and substance of the objections that are raised is more on the delay and at this stage, they

¶41

cannot be permitted to adduce further evidence or the witness cannot be recalled. The court below had observed that if this application is not allowed, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. When the matter is reserved for arguments, the applications are filed to reopen the case. Hence, the court has allowed the application by imposing cost of Rs.1000/-. The case is filed in the year 2023 and on 07.02.2022, the present IAs are filed that is almost within a year and the delay cannot be a reason in this case and with regard to any prejudice that is to be caused to the husband, nothing has been stated in the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:14845 WP No. 4320 of 2023

¶44

application. The husband in his objections has stated that unnecessarily applications are filed he has obtained interim order on 17.02.2023 and from the last one year two months, the entire proceedings before the court are stayed.

¶45

9. Considering all these factors, the court below

¶46

had rightly allowed the application by imposing costs. This court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

In view of dismissal of the main petition, all pending I.As do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Akhilesh B R v. Mrs Sapna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Akhilesh B R v. Mrs Sapna

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.Mohammed Abidur Rahaman Shariff Vs Smt Kuteja S.A.

Smt C R Indumathi Vs Kumari K C Namitha

Mrs. Praveena Venu v., Vs Mr. M.G.Saravanan

Dr Satish D Vs Gayathri v R

Mrs Jasleen Kaur Walia Vs Mr George Tarun Rajan

Gayathri H T Vs Ravikumar S