Disposed¶44

Sowmya Subramanian v. Venkatachalam Gopalam Aarun

Family Courts Act, 1984, S.19(1) – Appeal to High Court against Family Court order

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2025MFA/7535/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (DB: Jayant Banerji & Umesh M Adiga JJ.), 11.08.2025, MFA No. 7535 of 2024 (FC): appeal by party-in-person against Family Court, Bengaluru order dated 01.06.2024 dismissing petition MC.No.3110/2016 for non-prosecution; Court applied Order IX Rule 9 CPC route instead of entertaining direct appeal; disposed with 15-day liberty to apply to Family Court; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; liberty given to the appellant to file a proper application before the Family Court concerned, which if filed within 15 days shall be considered by that Court expeditiously; pending I.As stand disposed of. ¶44

Sowmya Subramanian Vs Venkatachalam Gopalam Aarun — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30914-DB MFA No. 7535 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7535 OF 2024 (FC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SOWMYA SUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O K.V.SUBRAMANIAN, R/AT NO.1096 “KAVERI” , 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560 097.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SMT.SOWMYA SUBRAMANIAN, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by K G VENKATACHALAM GOPALAN AARUN RENUKAMBA @ ARUN GOPAL, Location: AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF S/O. LATE V.GOPAL, KARNATAKA C/O.SMT.GEETHA GOPALAN, #NB4-11, VIJAYA ENCLAVE, BALEKARAHALLI, BANNERGHATA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶16

2^ND ADDRESS:

¶17

VENKATACHALAM GOPALAN AARUN @ ARUN GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30914-DB MFA No. 7535 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

S/O LATE.V.GOPAL, C/O.SMT.GEETHA GOPALAN, FLAT # 201, SUBHODAYA RESIDENCY, 5^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. SREEKANTHA K.S, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 PASSED IN MC.NO.3110/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL . JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶28

Heard the appellant who appears in person and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

By means of this appeal, under challenge is an order of 01.06.2024 in MC.No.3110/2016 passed by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30914-DB MFA No. 7535 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

A perusal of the order impugned reflects that, it

¶33

is to the following effect:

¶34

"PW1 absent. Advocate respondent present. Kept by.

¶35

Case again called at 5 p.m., PW1 called absent. Advocate for respondent present. Case is 6 years old and by July 2024 matter will be 7 years old. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity petitioner had not subjected herself for cross examination. Hence chief evidence of PW1 is discarded and petition is dismissed for non prosecution."

¶36

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,

¶37

1908¹ applies to the proceedings in Family Court, unless the special procedures are available in the Family Courts Act, 1984² . Therefore, given the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, it was for the petitioner, to have moved the Court concerned, which passed the order, rather than directly approach this Court.

¶38

The contention of the appellant is that she could not appear on the date fixed, as the some examination of her child was held on that date. It is further stated that, it is the respondent who is deliberately delaying the outcome

¶39

1 CPC

¶40

2 Act, 1984

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30914-DB MFA No. 7535 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

of the case, and is trying to rope in the petitioner into signing documents in mediation proceedings that would have the effect of compromising her financial status and rights.

¶44

Be that as it may, since the proper procedure is available under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, we deem it fit to dispose of this appeal, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Family Court concerned, having jurisdiction in the matter, with a proper application. If such an application is filed, within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be considered by the Family Court concerned, we hope, expeditiously.

¶45

Pending I.A's stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶48

PK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sowmya Subramanian v. Venkatachalam Gopalam Aarun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sowmya Subramanian v. Venkatachalam Gopalam Aarun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S Jagadish Vs Union Bank of India

Sri Chandrachari Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Harmony Architects Vs B. S. Sudharshan

Smt Suhasini Basavaraj Halagali Vs Basavaraja Hanumanth Halagali

Sri. B.S.Prabhuswamy Vs Smt. Mallammanni

Smt Sarala Vs Sri Nataraj K S