Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
The Indian Penal Code, 1860

User Queries
Karnataka High Court
Shri S Ganesh S/O M Sadasivam vs Smt Priya Kuriyan W/O Sri S Ganesh on 15 December, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal

{N THE HIGH COURT GF KARNATA}<%A AT BANGALGRE DATEQ THIS THE 15m DAY GF DECEMBER QGCBQT BEFORE ; V ~ ` ; .

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.€}£.YNg§Lé;L· _ii' 1 » * _ WRIT PETITION NG.3449Q/ ..._ _ "'--. A Shri S.{}a1'msh, I

Son 0i`M.Sadasivam, _- '```` '

Agcdab0z1t34ycars, _ V .` ' V _ Rcsiéi;1ga1tD~40¢1~, ». ° ' ¢ ·.W_ " 3 Rahqia R@sid€1*;cy,-- ·~ `_'v · '·» V y _ ` ` 7m Crass, Sm B}x;¤{vk? { .. .V'' ` }<0mma11gaia,_. , , `_ -- _· ]_ V Bangalore. ' » -```' 14`'~ * ..».?E'I`F?§ONB}R - {gy &5a.$mm ?agmg; _ `A@V. rm

Szi .~$ja_gJm1i;h Patfgmshmtti Asstzs., Advs,) _ $i}E,Q£l.·}:`i"'?Yj,{'é§'k. §i u,iij.?zx.*1, i V W;ii`¢·0_f S1`i·_SV.V€$3§2Q$h,

' V Agaé gfmzgzt 35 years,

n R€$icii;2<`1g zgaif @#464,

_ _ _ _'·éV §&.;T1€j§ii Exsjémicy,

5 " Cm$$,----3fd Biwck,

V- < .__` §<Z0:f&1*£:;g,nga1a,, ' , ` --, _ Bz;:1gz;=£@m, _...RESP{)N}3EP~!T ' -- Vlqw V W '· I {By Sm'£;*B¥1&muRavk1é@r, Adv.}

Tliie writ petition is fled under Articles 226 end 227 of the Constitution of Indie with ez prayer to quash the impugoed order vide Annexure `Cr' dated i'?.£l.2009, pessed by the 2nd Add}. Principal Family Court ei; Bangalore in M.C.No.l32 i/OT", __ consequently allow the eppiioeizions deieel 11. i_l._2£")GG,; filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil rmeeeem, ` seeking permission to file the counter eleio:r___e:;ii, to condone the delay if eny in filing ofmthe eoizrxier eieire . ,4 fiied by the petitioxierfrespondeiit nod »_aeeep;. counter claim ofthe petiiioner/responé;ent'. r ` ` ```· » i This writ petition oorniiig one for j1?l*lé'z·if"¥Ef?3_§L¥;Q' hearing in `B" Group, this deyo {he Cours meeie the following: Q v____ w

oeoEe~ * Qr ri

Both the hirslogzarzd·'er1<EQ,`;:iv4ii'e`i'e, loggerlieeds. The peneiozzer lresponoem; were merriergl on 2G.{}1.l99'?.`*» 4_¤_ iii oopeers merriege was a smooth 4 sailing for cpiiie some time, Thereafter, certain V `dif?e1`enees erupted regmroirig fiearxeiel _ imeiieeihione J', ` ilrrot ee ii may, the wife hee filed or l` _ petition _` eeekieg dieeoiurjon of the marriage in V. ·rrr 4 { ISQUQQQOO? wider rhe previeiozz of Speeiei Marriage V Z ll°i AQo£.] li i M

5 K u 3 "

2. The petitiemerexuebesqd e1*1te1'ed eppeeyeeee and filed statement ef ebjectiees. It is not in dispute thm; the mettet was refemred to Meeietien

receneilietien, ee else the imrmeezil Family J ·. .l`` f ° VQ put en end to the eerimeny betweett _1"A Z ». '_Qq A met in dispute that ell efforts were ·t;1e1<te teV,l;tit1g° thjet V A weymtg parties te eeme eert ef eeti;¥.ement»`bt1t'teeteeeet, it else failed. The trial tvem eee cejueidereble period ef time, the petitietitee out with e ecmeter claim m";£e_t_e'Ord~er et the Cede ef Civil F1;·0eedeeeeQ`_` _§¥'etttt}5r Judge hee rejected the sejd eppiieetiexiga that the evicieuee hee eireeey eemteeeeeet Vqetztl the filing ef the eppiieetien VV eeieeimg tactics. The eejd enter ef , tejeetieet te éjeeetteeed ie this writ petitiete. .tq.` _· Eg leemed eezmeei eppeerimg fee the petittemer '_,· that the eetitienee ie yet te eemteeeee his ttetdenee, which weuid eeeeeeeexeiiy meet; that the .'~t _; it __`·L ' --.eunter~e.leim eught te have been etxtertaieeé izteereueh J ee Greer VIH Rule 6(e} eemgexiepietee that e eeentete M

.. 4 -

ciaim can be ioégcd bcfcm this defcrzdazzt sets mg his e:vid@1`1<;&. '`' j _

4. The lcaiwéeci cmmscl appcmiimg j L ; ·:$p0nd&nt--wii`c submits that thc; °3;1a#s 1`'- _ close to 15 months tc Bic S¥2E£?§jI}1€&iY_V,(j§` Qbj;s£:t;§gg>Vz3§"_"a;a;1§ the Si3'{L€H1€Hf of objections a,1s§`§§:¢ mgt •:i{isc.i§§sE: that 3:;;},, effort is made hy »1*<2c0f;s.<#§1€ %;¥t1& difi`<2rc11cc$. Hence, $h@j.1n$tifi§ss.` fgicjétiéh. 5_ 01*d@1'. It is HG

daubt triicé under (}1*'ci@r WH §u1& Ma) cgi; tc1¤¥§:¥fai1i&§VW Wbcf0z*€ the evidence 0f the ° i €?é111fH€2iCéCiL But .}:10wc2v@1*, in tlw case on i V '1V» zééticed that tim c02m£@r~c1&im iS in the l V gmtzjm Gi ._;*€¤?1i;$;f;i;i;i¤»r1 cf comgugaj §"ji§h`§$¤ iméscé an @§"0z"t; "¤.;i{;.z¤$ z1f;@§<=;· Eibre {ha M&cii&ti0n crzmer as wall &s hy tha ._ , `vV'h ·§§'3§T£'iiE§* V·A Clmum {G Mizxg me pariziés mgether. But hmwevcr, Vl_W V q égitzrtgs haw failad, in Lhasa Ci}"ClHHSt3I1C€S, I am cf .A4` ' W. ·i`}T`1f3 View Ehat at this mini of- tima, the-2 question Gf cntériajming tha coumier ciaim wmzid {wt ayisat f//PZ ,/"

. ` - 5 ·

6. The leameé counsel o.ppeo.t*iz1g for the respondent relies on a ruling of the Apex Court in cose of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya V/S, Anil ' reported in Am 2003 SC 2508 whereigttitw ·¤`¤ tw VQ observed that the purpose of L A ` 4vt_ A filing of et oo1.mter--o}aim is; to o.£2otd·-- H}U.§`€i}_'J;.tCQii}' judicial proceedings ood save léut

however, the some is ree;o§ret`;A ot earliest and not at a belated stage. ` Ir;.5.eeé2 ilTt"iji'téWC€tS€ on hood, if toe appliootioolibztqwooixntef gzeeemted, it xviii 'oe utilized mf; Aiorcing upon o reopening of the oy oock the ptogees of the

»pv1~·ooeetiiogs... Hem;:e,_I_o.m of the view that at this point 'of time. the tfttestioo of entertaining za. eontmter claim V doeotzot if for any meson, the petition eeekiog _ 4Q_W._V v¤E§.$_$SO}tt¥j.€ti"1·;_ marriage feiio, it ie always ope;} for the .. ·.__ V'·W to eeek restitution by separate proceedings. » ? ·P¥?}.é§%T'@ ts no merit in this petition. ..4A D __`L < ,4_4`` F'etitio11 staodo rejected. l V M " _ l_.`

It is also to be rmiicad that the mastrknomiai mészijicxj is pcnciing sirxw 2% ycmws. in these p1"0c€@{li;§g%'§g dcsimblc that the partias should know.V·2=a¤'I{1€?§ ii;3§@y l stand, so that they can chaikmui; *Q1?1ci;jf`§i1i;Li1*¢"Qiijbh;"` I ._._ » Q 4'--_ A Pmcecdizxgs Shall ba c0mp}@i;édA_wi€.?gir1. , ihrczs months from the date of gf Qfdéi: _ ~ Sd/Q:

q _Q ··WA

Sm 4