Allowed

Smt. Vanita W/O Chandrakanth Badiger v. Chandrakanth S/O Nagappap Badiger

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025WP/100279/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife and child challenged the Family Court's rejection of their Section 10 CPC application to stay a second suit for declaration that the child was not born in wedlock, when an earlier suit on the same relief was pending. The High Court held the application ought to have been allowed and stayed proceedings in O.S. No.18/2016 until disposal of the earlier Hirekerur suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Vanita W/O Chandrakanth Badiger Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15050 WP No. 100279 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100279 OF 2018 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. VANITA W/O. CHANDRAKANTH BADIGER, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, C/O. TARAKESHWAR KAMMAR, R/O: KUDAPALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶8

BHARATHKUMAR S/O. CHANDRAKANTH BADIGER, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/BY MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER SMT.VANITA W/O. CHANDRAKANTH BADIGETR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, C/O. TARAKESHWAR KAMMAR, R/O: KUDAPALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

CHANDRAKANTH S/O. NAGAPPAP BADIGER AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: L.F. KAMADOLLI CHALA, SHIMPIGALLI, AKKIHONDA, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(SRI. CHANDRAKANTH S/O. NAGAPPAP BADIGER, PARTY IN PERSON)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE a writ or order OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.18/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.III.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15050 WP No. 100279 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

¶24

question the order dated 04.12.2017 passed on I.A. No.3 in O.S. No. 18/2016.

¶25

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶26

The respondent, party-in-person, has remained continuously absent. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners is heard, and the petition is being disposed of.

¶27

4. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶28

The petitioners are the wife and child of the respondent–

¶29

husband. The respondent is stated to have filed a suit in O.S. No.302/2015 before the competent Court at Hirekerur, seeking a declaration that the 2^nd petitioner, the child born during the wedlock, was not born out of the wedlock between the 1^st petitioner and the respondent. The said suit is still pending consideration before the concerned Court at Hirekerur.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15050 WP No. 100279 of 2018

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Notwithstanding the pendency of the said suit, the respondent is said to have instituted another suit in O.S. No.18/2016 before the Family Court at Hubballi, seeking the very same declaration between the same parties.

¶33

In view of the pendency of the earlier suit, the petitioners filed an application in I.A. No. 3 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking stay of the subsequent suit in O.S. No.18/2016. The concerned Court, however, rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court in the present petition.

¶34

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The earlier suit in O.S. No.302/2015 before the Court at Hirekerur and the subsequent suit in O.S. No.18/2016 before the Family Court at Hubballi are both filed between the same parties and for the same relief.

¶35

Therefore, the application filed under Section 10 of the CPC in the subsequent suit ought to have merited favourable consideration at the hands of the concerned Court.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15050 WP No. 100279 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

In light of the pendency of two suits seeking the same relief between the same parties, the proceedings in O.S.

¶40

No.18/2016 shall remain stayed till the disposal of O.S. No.302/2015 pending before the Court at Hirekerur.

¶41

Ordered accordingly.

¶42

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶43

AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Vanita W/O Chandrakanth Badiger v. Chandrakanth S/O Nagappap Badiger

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Vanita W/O Chandrakanth Badiger v. Chandrakanth S/O Nagappap Badiger

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Mehaboob Hakki Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Basavaraj R Bagade S/O Late Ramachandrappa Bagade Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Uday S/O. Tualasidas Bandekar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Shivashankargouda S/O Timmanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Farooqe Ahmed Iqbal Ahmed Balekundri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basavaraj S/O Channamallappa Soudatti Vs the Divisional Controller