Husband sought a writ direction that the perjury application in his wife's divorce petition be decided first, alleging she fabricated details about the marriage venue. The court found no necessity to prioritise the application and dismissed the petition.
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:31166 WP No. 8823 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8823 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MR. DHEVARATH A.C., S/O. H. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT.NO.6/4, 6/5, 2ND CROSS, POOJA GARDEN, KALKERE, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHEVARATH A.C., PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. LIKITHA R., D/O MR. RAGHAVENDRA D., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, REP BY SPA HOLDER SMT. NIRMALA G.K., W/O. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA D., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH R/AT NO.151, VISHWANATH NAGENAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT IN M.C.6828/2022 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:31166 WP No. 8823 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings in M.C.No.6828/2022 on the file of V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru whereby the Trial Court by proceedings dated 05.03.2024 had observed that the learned counsel for the respondent had filed application under Section 340, 195 of CrPC regarding fabricating the documents. It requires evidence and it is a direction matter. Therefore, office is directed to register the separate Miscellaneous petition. PW1 is present and partly cross examined till 1.40 pm. Cross examination deferred and for further cross examination of PW1 the case was posted on 06.03.2024. Now, the husband is before this court as party in person seeking a direction from this Court that the perjury application has to be decided first then the matter has to be proceeded.
respondent which was solemnized on 15.09.2021 at“Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala Manjunatha Swamy Temple, Dharmasthala” and the same got registered before the Registrar of Marriages, Gandhinagar on 16.09.2021. It is the case of the husband that the marriage had taken place at Bangalore but not at Dharmasthala. The relief that is sought by the wife itself cannot be granted and in the earlier criminal proceedings she had mentioned about Bangalore. All these shows that the wife had committed forgery as such the Trial Court has to hear the perjury application and should pass an order that the wife had made wrong statement before the Trial Court. He had relied on an order passed by Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case
of Dr. Praveen R. Vs. Dr. Arpitha in W.P.No.19448/2015,
dated 31.08.2021 wherein the Court relying on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that the applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would befall the perjuring parties. He had relied on the another judgment of the Telangana High Court in case of G. Sandeep
Raju Vs. G. Preethi and another in Crl.Petition.No.2558/2024
dated 05.03.2024, whereby the Trial Court had not taken up the petition under Section 340 of CrPC on the ground of it might impact the proceedings on the maintenance case. Then, the Court had given a direction that the perjury proceedings have to be decided first. He had also relied on the another judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Ramesh Asht Vs. U.T. Chandigarh in CRM-M No.55350/2023 (O & M), Dated: 06.11.2023 relying on this judgment, the party in person submits that the perjury application has to be decided before proceeding with the main matter.
NC: 2024:KHC:31166 WP No. 8823 of 2024
Court finds that there is no necessity to decide the application first and the Trial Court in its usual course can decide the application. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere.
Hence, the following,
ORDER
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court must decide the Section 340 CrPC perjury application before proceeding with the divorce petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Praveen R. Vs. Dr. ArpithaReferred
W.P.No.19448/2015, dated 31.08.2021
G. Sandeep Raju Vs. G. Preethi and anotherReferred
Crl.Petition.No.2558/2024 dated 05.03.2024
Ramesh Asht Vs. U.T. ChandigarhReferred
CRM-M No.55350/2023 (O & M), Dated: 06.11.2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhevarath A.C.
Likitha R.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
