The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application to strike out scandalous language in a divorce plaint. The Court held there is no interference when the lower court applied Order VI Rule 16 CPC correctly.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order dismissing I.A. No. 13 under Order VI Rule 16 CPC upheld.
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:14033 WP No. 8025 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8025 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NANCY A, W/O JOHN PETER, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO. 236, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, NEW KAVIKA LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026.
ALSO AT: RESIDING AT NO. 208, BHOOMIKA SUNRISE APARTMENT, KEMBANTHHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GAURAV C.N, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
SRI. JOHN PETER, S/O ANTONY DASS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING FLAT NO. 001 GROUND FLOOR, "OCHRE", MSO COLONY, BANASAWADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 005.
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2024 (ANNEXURE -A) ON IN NO. 13 IN MC NO. 3321/2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU AND
THEREBY ALLOW APPLICATION IA NO. 13 IN M.C NO. 3321/2020 AND PASS SUCH ORDERS DEEMS FIT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.13 filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in M.C.No.3321/2020 dated 17.01.2024
on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Court below had dismissed I.A.No.13, the wife is before this Court.
on the ground of cruelty. In the plaint, several incidents were averred and allegations against the wife regarding how she is not a good wife and what are the acts that are
NC: 2024:KHC:14033 WP No. 8025 of 2024
done by the wife which constitutes cruelty. At para No.13
of the plaint, the husband had stated as follows:
"The petitioner submits that the harassment of the respondent reached penultimate when on one occasion, she openly told the petitioner that she will sleep with anyone and that the petitioner has no right to question her and that she will need 10 men to satisfy her and definitely she will not think about the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was subjected to immense mental agony, emotional and psychological stress after hearing to obnoxious things from the respondent and the petitioner has not done anything to hear such vulgarity from the woman he married to. The petitioner would have preferred to be deaf rather than hearing such vulgar words from the respondent."
the matter is coming up for respondent's evidence. At this juncture, I.A.No.13 is filed to strike off the pleadings made in Para No.13 as it is frivolous and vexatious and it caused permanent injury to the wife and those allegations are only made to stain the reputation of the wife and they are scandalous in nature.
NC: 2024:KHC:14033 WP No. 8025 of 2024
language is nothing short of character assassination and the feelings of the wife are affected by it. Without appreciating the contentions raised by the wife, the Court below had dismissed the petition. It is submitted that for believing the said para No.13, no evidence is produced. When an application is filed under Order VI Rule 16, no other evidence is required looking at the allegations or the particular paragraph, the Court below can pass orders. He submits that the Court below without appreciating the contentions in its proper perspective had dismissed the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:14033 WP No. 8025 of 2024
something, the burden lies on the plaintiff to substantiate the same. If the husband fails to substantiate the same, the wife is at liberty to take appropriate action and remedies are still open. The Court had considered the application within the scope of Order VI Rule 16 and dismissed the application.
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the impugned order dismissing an application to strike out scandalous and frivolous pleadings filed by the husband in a divorce petition.
Whether an application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC requires appreciation of contentions beyond the pleadings before dismissal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. NANCY A
SRI. JOHN PETER
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
