Xxxx (Vide Order dated 24.04.2026) Vs Xxxx

XXXX S/O. SRI. M. M. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O. NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR AMBERN APARTMENTS, NO. 13, MONEYVILLE ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU-560 025.

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

XXXX

W/O. NISHANK KARIAPPA,

¶18

Page no.1 retyped and replaced vide order passed by Computers and Technology Committee dated 24.04.2026

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶23

R/O. NO.301, 3RD FLOOR, AMBERN APARTMENTS, NO.13,

¶24

MONEYVILLE ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. ABHILASH J, ADVOCATE AND

¶27

SRI. RAJESH P, ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 24 IN MC NO. 4272/2021 BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Heard Sri.S.H.Raghavendra who represents Ms.Vaishali

¶36

Hegde learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri. Abhilash.J learned counsel for the respondent.

¶37

Seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ and to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A No.XXIV in M.C. No. 4272/2021 dated 26.09.2024.

¶38

On hearing the submission made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the relevant material that is brought on record, it is clear that the petitioner herein filed a petition invoking Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the Court to pass a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnized between him and the respondent herein. The said petition was filed on the ground that respondent subjected him to cruelty.

¶39

Respondent raised a counter claim through which she also sought a decree of divorce. However raising a ground of adultery. During the course of proceedings, at one point, they came to an understanding and sought for disposal of both the

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

matters dissolving the marriage that went on between them. However, the petitioner went back and sought for disposal of both the matters on merits.

¶44

This Court through the common order in writ petition No.6286/2025 and writ petition No.15551/2025, directed the Family Court to frame issues, permit both the parties to adduce further evidence and to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than 6 months. When the proceedings basing on the order thus rendered were commenced by the Family Court, the petitioner herein filed a petition seeking the Court to issue summons to Dr.Sangeetha Rao, Sita Raksha Clinic for production of medical records. Family Court dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/husband took a specific plea that respondent/wife maintained extra marital affair with another person. Learned counsel states that though the spouses did not cohabitate for long period, yet respondent/wife used contraceptives and that apart she became pregnant. Learned counsel submits that

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

respondent who got examined herself as RW-1 was subjected to cross-examination and during the course of crossexamination she admitted that after birth of the child they did not cohabit. Learned counsel further submits that an application was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to produce relevant medical records and for the said application respondent has not filed any objections. The said application was allowed. Learned counsel also states that Ex. P-11 came to be marked in that regard. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner intends to establish his version through the medical record which goes to show that respondent took treatment, took contraceptives and that certain tablets were given for the termination of pregnancy. Learned counsel also states that on dismissing the application filed, the Family Court has closed the doors and thereby prevented him from establishing his version and aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed.

¶50

Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the respondent states that indeed the petitioner is guilty of adultery. Respondent sought a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery. Petitioner did not raise the

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ground of adultery at all. Ample material is there to show that petitioner visited hotels and spent time with another woman. Learned counsel also contends that at the fag end of the trial, petitioner filed an application to call for the medical record and the said application was moved only to drag on the proceedings and therefore the Court rightly dismissed the petition.

¶55

In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner took a specific plea about the adulterous life of the respondent in his pleadings i.e. in the petition filed by him for grant of divorce. Learned counsel also states that the Family Court framed issues and one of the issue framed directly pertains to the conduct of respondent and burden vests upon the petitioner herein to prove the said issue.

¶56

At para 14 of the petition filed by the petitioner herein for divorce he alleged that he found medical records of the respondent in the cupboard and was shocked to know that she was pregnant in the month of February 2021. He also alleged that the respondent has been having extra marital affairs since 2019. As per her medical record it shows that she has been taking contraceptives. He also alleged that they were living

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

apart since 6 years. At para 15 of the pleadings he gave details of the said medical record.

¶61

The respondent who got examined herself as RW-1 during the course of cross-examination admitted that after the birth of child there was no physical intimacy between her and the petitioner herein. Cross-examination went on in respect of contents of Ex.P-10 and P-11- medical record.

¶62

Now coming to the issues framed by the Court, Issue No.1 reads as under:

¶63

"Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has cheated the petitioner and committed act of mental and physical cruelty on the petitioner?

¶64

The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has not taken the plea of adultery and therefore examining of any doctor or hospital authorities is not required.

¶65

The issue framed by the Family Court as pointed out earlier is whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has cheated him and committed an act of mental and physical cruelty. Whether maintaining intimate relationship with another

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

person by one of the spouses or the alleged extra marital affair amounts to mental cruelty against the other party to the marriage or not is a fact to be decided by the trial Court.

¶70

Having perceived the fact that the specific stand of the petitioner is that the respondent maintained intimate relationship with another person and approached hospital in that regard, also having considered the points elicited during the cross-examination of RW-1 and furthermore the issue framed by the Family Court which is referred supra, this Court is of the view that the Family Court ought to have allowed the application as sought for. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to allow the writ petition. Resultantly the following:-

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶73

ii. The order rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A No.XXIV in M.C. No.4272/2021 dated 26.09.2024 is set aside.

¶74

iii. Consequently, the said interlocutory application is allowed.

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:5736 WP No. 35097 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

iv. Having considered the fact that there is a direction from this Court to dispose of the matter within 6 months vide common order in writ petition No. 6286/2025 c/w writ petition No. 15551/2025 dated 28.10.2025 and on this writ petition being allowed, the Court is required to issue summons to the concerned, proceed with the trial of the case and thereafter to dispose of the matter, the time granted is extended for a period of 3 months from the date of expiry of the time granted through the order in the writ petitions referred supra.

¶79

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶80

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Xxxx (Vide Order dated 24.04.2026) v. Xxxx

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xxxx (Vide Order dated 24.04.2026) v. Xxxx

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 Amaresh Reddy Vs Nithyashree @ Hansika-Raksha a

Sri Suddep a I Vs Smt Roopa B R

Mr Rohit Khajuria Vs Mrs Sushma (Muthamma) Madappa

Mr D Viswanath Vs Smt Mamta @ Mamta Vishwanath

Sri Venkatesh C T Vs Smt Yogeshwari J

M Mohammad Vs Mohammed Nawaz