Dismissed

Mr. Shankarananda K v. Mrs. Sahana

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/6529/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A husband sought certiorari to quash paragraph 43 of his wife's cross-examination in a pending divorce case, contending hospital bill documents were not marked despite admissions. The High Court found no order requiring interference under Article 227 and dismissed the petition, closing all interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed and all I.As. closed.

Mr. Shankarananda K Vs Mrs. Sahana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46259 WP No. 6529 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6529 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. SHANKARANANDA K., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE S.C. KALEGOWDA, R/A: MAJJIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK -577 222.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MRS. SAHANA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, W/O MR. SHANKARANANDA K.,

¶11

MR. PARAMESHGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE K. NANJUNDAPPA,

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT: MALAVAGOPPA, NEAR JNANA JYOTHI ENGLISH SCHOOL, MALAVAGOPPA SHIMOGA-577 222.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN M C NO.107/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE PARA NO.43 OF THE IMPUGNED CROSS - EXAMINATION DATED 23/02/2023 IN M C NO.107/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI I.E., ANNEXURE-A.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46259 WP No. 6529 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11/03/2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

CAV ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶23

prayers:

¶24

"a) Call for records in M.C.No.107/2019 pending before the Hon'ble PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.

¶25

b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to QUASH & SET ASIDE the PARA No.43 of the Impugned Cross - Examination dated 23/02/2023 in M.C.No.107/2019 pending before the Hon'ble PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI i.e., ANNEXURE - A

¶26

c) Grant such other relief/(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the Case in the interest of justice and equity

¶27

INTERIM PRAYER

¶28

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN M.C.No.107/2019 pending before the Hon'ble PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI ANNEXURE - A in the interest of justice and equity."

¶29

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for

¶30

the sake of convenience.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46259 WP No. 6529 of 2023

¶32

The petitioner/husband had filed MC.No.107/2019

¶33

seeking divorce. It is the case of the husband that the marriage had taken place on 16.05.2019 in Bhadravathi as per the Hindu customs and rights. During the cohabitation, the husband discovered that the respondent No.1 wife was suffering from various diseases including mental disorders viz. Paranoid Schizophrenia and Hyperthyroidism which led to breakdown of their marriage and the husband filed MC.No.107/2019 seeking divorce. The counsel for the husband has cross - examined the wife starting from 14.12.2022, wherein he successfully exposed the perjury committed by the wife vide admissions, improvements and omissions. On 23.02.2023, the learned Judge did not take on record or allow the marking of seven documents through the wife despite the wife having admitted the said seven documents. As those documents were not marked, it is causing lot of hardship to the husband.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court had failed to exercise its power under Order 32 A and Section 151 of the CPC thereby rendering the entire

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46259 WP No. 6529 of 2023

¶36

cross-examination of the respondent No.2 in danger of becoming futile given the perjury of the respondents. It is the case of the husband that the provision of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to primary, secondary and corroborative evidence in its true letter and spirit was not considered. The translation of paragraph No.43 is placed before this Court which reads as below:

¶37

"43. After my engagement until got married, I do not remember the phone number which I had. It is true that on 10-06-2019, Petitioner took me to Durga Hospital for treatment. The witness admits some copies of bills of Durga Hospital shown to her. But on the said copies of the bill the doctor has signed as requested by the applicant as the original documents were with the opposite party hence they are not marked. The witness admits some of copies of bills of Nayana Hospital shown to her. But on the said copies of the bill the doctor has signed as requested by the applicant as the original documents were with the opposite party hence they are not marked."

¶38

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said paragraph of the cross-examination dated 23.02.2023 in MC.No.107/2019 has to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted some

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46259 WP No. 6529 of 2023

¶40

documents in support of the same. As far as the relief that is sought in the writ petition that para No.43 of the crossexamination has to be quashed and set aside, this Court do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶41

The grounds that are raised in support of the writ petition also do not make any legal and tenable grounds and this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot grant such a relief. In fact, no order is passed by the Court which requires to be interfered by this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶44

ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶45

Sd/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE)

¶46

MEG CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 1.1

Mr. Shankarananda K v. Mrs. Sahana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shankarananda K v. Mrs. Sahana

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 Sharath Alva Vs Smt Soumya Rai

Sri Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs Pragya Yadav

Sri T Rame Gowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri. T Ramaiah Vs Sri. Shivanna

Pradeep Laxman Bhat Vs Sangeetha Laxman Bhat

Mr. Shankarananda K Vs Mrs. Sahana