Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Karbari Vs Sri Madolappa

SMT. BHUVANESHWARI KARBARI W/O SRI MADOLAPPA, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC: PSI, DSB SECTION, R/AT HALAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT, PRESENTLY UNDER MATERNITY TREATMENT AT VIJAYAPURA 3 586 205.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI KISHAN G.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI MADOLAPPA S/O PRABHUSHETTY AGED 36 YEARS, OCC: ACP, CEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI 3 585 102

¶15

&RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. VAISHNAVI B. DEVAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF M.C. NO.776/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU; QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 IN M.C.NO.776/2025 WHEREBY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:18278 WP No. 56 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

REJECTED THE PETITIONER9S PRAYER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO FILE OBJECTIONS, TREATED THE OBJECTION STATEMENT AS <NOT FILED=, AND POSTED THE MATTER FOR PETITIONER9S SIDE EVIDENCE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge the order dated 21.11.2025 in M.C. No.776/2025 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru (8Trial Court9 for short), whereby the petitioner's prayer for adjournment to file statement of objections was treated as 8 not filed9 and the matter was posted for petitioner's side evidence.

¶26

The respondent-husband has instituted M.C.

¶27

No.776/2025 seeking dissolution of marriage. Upon service of notice, the petitioner-wife entered appearance and the matter was referred to mediation, which did not fruity.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:18278 WP No. 56 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

It is the specific case of the petitioner that she

¶32

delivered a male child on 06.11.2025 through a caesarean section and was medically advised complete rest and not to travel. In view of her medical condition, she was unable to furnish instructions for filing statement of objections and sought adjournment by placing medical records on record. Despite the same, the Trial Court, while partly allowing the application, refused adequate time, treated the objections as 8not filed9, and proceeded to post the matter for evidence.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶34

the impugned order treating the objections as 8not filed9 is in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as reasonable opportunity to file statement of objections has been denied despite the petitioner placing on record the medical documents, evidencing delivery by 8C9 section and postnatal incapacity. It is further contended that inability to file statement of objections was due to circumstances

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:18278 WP No. 56 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

beyond her control and therefore, the trial Court ought to have exercised its discretion in granting reasonable time.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that he has no objection to allow the petition by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to file the statement of objections, subject to putting the petitioner on terms.

¶40

The said submission is recorded.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides

¶42

and upon perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner delivered a child on 6.11.2025 through a caesarean section and was medically advised rest. The petitioner had also brought this fact to the notice of the trial Court by filing a memo along with supporting documents. The trial Court, however, treated the statement of objections as 8not filed9 and posted the matter for evidence, without assigning cogent reasons as

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:18278 WP No. 56 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

to why further time could not be granted in the peculiar

¶47

facts of the case.

¶48

8. Though Order VIII Rule 1 prescribes a time

¶49

frame for filing written statement, the same is directory in nature and permits exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases. In the present case, the delay is attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, namely post delivery medical condition.

¶50

In matrimonial proceedings, particularly before

¶51

the Family Court, a liberal and facilitative approach is required to ensure that the parties are afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings. Denial of such an opportunity, especially in the facts of the present case, would result in grave prejudice. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent it treats the objection as not filed cannot be sustained and this Court pass the following :

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:18278 WP No. 56 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶57

ii. The impugned order dated 21.11.2025 treating he statement of objection as 8 not filed9 is recalled .

¶58

iii. The petitioner is permitted to file statement of objections on or before 25.04.2026. If the petitioner fails to file the statement of objections within the stipulated time, the same shall be treated as 8not filed9 and the impugned order shall stand revived automatically.

¶59

iv. The trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶62

MBM

¶63

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Karbari v. Sri Madolappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Karbari v. Sri Madolappa

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

Kumari Kusuma Vs Smt Nagalakshmi C

Mr. Manjunatha L Vs Mr. Narayanaswamy C

E. Balasundaram Vs Mangala Mary

Mr. S.P.Muniraju Vs Mr.T S Bhaskar Reddy

Smt.Manjula T.S. Vs Smt.Manjula N

Sri Shivanadakumar J Vs Smt Shamala S K