Allowed

Smt. Chandana Muniswamaiah Rameshkumar v. Ranjith Venkatarajanahalli Srinivasaiah

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/8169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial dispute the husband filed an application to represent his divorce proceedings through a power of attorney holder, supported by a GPA falsely stating he was in India when he was abroad. The High Court found this misrepresentation unfit to be treated as human error and set aside the trial court's order allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.01.2022 in MC.No.25/2021 set aside; pending I.As closed; no liberty granted to respondent.

Smt. Chandana Muniswamaiah Rameshkumar Vs Ranjith… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11051 WP No. 8169 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8169 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. CHANDANA MUNISWAMAIAH RAMESHKUMAR D/O SRI RAMESH KUMAR MUNISWAMAIAH, W/O RANJITH VENKATARAJANAHALLI SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT 969, NEAR PARTK B BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, TEKALL ROAD KOLAR 563101

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAVI H K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

RANJITH VENKATARAJANAHALLI SRINIVASAIAH S/O SHRI.SRINIVASAIAH VENKATARAJANAHALLI RANGAPPA, R/O SMT. CHANDAN MUNISWAMAIAH Digitally signed RAMESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH PERMANENT RESIDENT AT VENKATARANAHALLI, COURT OF HULADENA POST, TEKKAL HBOLI, KARNATAKA MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563137, KARNATAKA STATE. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 7401, HAUGERUDVEIEN 10, 560074 NORWAY, EUROPEAN UNION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S R SIDDARTHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:11051 WP No. 8169 of 2022

¶14

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDRE DTD. 25.01.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT IN M.C.NO. 25/2021 ON I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 3 RULE 2 READ WITH SECTION 151, CPC BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-D BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID I.A. NO.2.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present writ petition is filed seeking following

¶18

prayer:

¶19

i) Quashing the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Malur, Kolar District in M.C.no.25/2021 on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 3 Rule 2 read with Section 151, CPC by the respondent vide Annexure-D by issuing a writ of Certiorari and consequently dismiss the said I.A.No.2.

¶20

ii) Grand such other and further reliefs as are just including costs of this petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

The respondent/husband herein has filed

¶22

MC.No.25/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Malur, Kolar District under Section 13 (1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage which was solemnized on 10.10.2019. The wife after service of summons appeared before the court below. Respondent herein is working in Norway, he has come up

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11051 WP No. 8169 of 2022

¶24

with I.A.No.2 under Order 3 Rule 2 read with Section 151, CPC seeking to produce the General Power of Attorney (GPA) to adjudicate the case through his agent. The said I.A. was allowed by the court below. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/wife is before this court.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even as per the GPA which is filed the respondent/husband is not in India and engaged a power of attorney holder to represent him before the court. It is submitted that in the said GPA, he had singed and it is notarized, as if he has signed before the notary. It is submitted that as on the date of the GPA, the respondent/husband is not in India and the said mischievous document filed before this court and on oath he files such a document before the court. The court below should have taken the note of the same and should have initiated the forgery proceedings. Instead of that the court below without any basis has allowed this petition.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:11051 WP No. 8169 of 2022

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that initially he has presented the GPA, at that point of time the same could not be rectified, thereafter the application came to be filed. It is submitted that it was not intentional on the part of the respondent/husband and it is a human error on the part of the husband. He submits that the writ petition may be allowed and they will come up with an appropriate application with fresh GPA and liberty may be granted to the respondent.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This court has perused the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. and also GPA. As per the same, as on the time he was in India and he has filed the same but he was not in India at the relevant point of time. These kind of mischief on behalf of the respondent cannot be considered as a human error. In fact this has to be viewed very seriously and it is a fit case to initiate perjury proceedings against the respondent/husband. He filed a case M.C.No.25/2021 for

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11051 WP No. 8169 of 2022

¶31

dissolution of marriage, happily he went to Norway and now he files a GPA, as if he is present in India. Initially this court wanted to direct the court below to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent, however considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 and this court is not inclined to grant any kind of liberty to the respondent herein who has come up before the court with

¶32

misrepresentation of facts.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in MC.No.25.2021 dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Malur is set aside.

¶35

ii) In the light of the orders passed in writ petition all the pending I.A’s are closed.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

¶38

Smt. Chandana Muniswamaiah Rameshkumar v. Ranjith Venkatarajanahalli Srinivasaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandana Muniswamaiah Rameshkumar v. Ranjith Venkatarajanahalli Srinivasaiah

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

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Vedavathi

Venkob Rao Vs Sri. Girish Swamy

Mrs. Akshatha G. Nayak Vs Mr. Shamanth. S. Suvarna

Mohammed Khasim Vs P U Devadas

Dr Mrs Shilpa Ranjan Mulki Vs Dr Dheeraj Kumar

Smt Preethi N Vs Mr Ajay S N