Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
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


THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE .AJI"i' J.{}E T4 T WRIT PETITION No.3449§.i/ 2é): C3 .'§?(C§1.\}§.§'P--'.:C}V. ' BETWEEN :

Shri S.{}aI1es}:1,

Son of Mfiadasivam,

Aged about 34 years,

Resiéing at D~--40~4~, . V

Raheja Resid€r:cy,a .

7&1 Grass, 3"' B};{Zi't';':§:§, _'-- V Korama_.ngaia,,_. ~ .V V

Bangaiore. . ..».1F'E2TI'§'iONB1R (By far

Sz'1.«s,f3.g:aI1i;h Patfgnshatti ASStS«; Advs.) V A' .....

. V 'S 33.? .'P{'§7§i'E1.,4K'L1%i'iy'Eif1, W"§f€*fif S1~:-:'§«T.,V»{§.::i;£:7$h, Aged ahmat 1315 years,

' _R€$iCiii3--?1g a;;t';:-'M94,

_ _ Rahfija Essiéency,

" " ' i".'?'4-5 ..CIf'01sS; ~31?' Biavckfi E<Z0:i83'fi'3;nga}a,

% Bafigaiérs. % ...RESP£)NSEN'I'

L {B}: S11'1t.B';1a1:m Ravindrssr, Adv.) 'I'hiS writ petition is filed under Articles 2126 aryii 22? of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order Vidfi Armexure '*3' dated 1'?'.£1.2009, passfid by £116 2115 Add}. Principal Family Court at Bangaiare ix: M.C.N0'132i/O7', consequently allow the appiications daied 11.1.ly_2'.f)(3'~3',:T. V 3 fflsd under Sectien 151 cf Code of Civii P1¢é?gce:éi3i"+e,T ' ' seaking pcsrnnission to £133 the counter C1ain:1.._a:1:i. 1:0 ' ' condone the delay if any in fiiing ofmthe crgizrxtéiiv ,<: T£ai13*:; flied by the pc::titio11crfrc3spo=;1dc:1*1t agrzd a(;:::r:§>:._ counted" claim of the p€ti{i0n6r/ refififindlent'. ' " " Tr' This writ: petitien corfiiiig 011% for gzéréiifrtiaqry hearing fin 'B' Group, this day<,,. 'v:he Ccurt Tmaziifz the followirlgz


Both the 'iéggerheads.

T116 petiigiozzer 8 1'}d'x._fi1{§I "?fiSp{:1'id€iI1t were mairied on

20.G1.199'"? :33; Vvafpfepéérs marriage was a smoath _sa:i.1iz;g fo1"V"c:;.1..1éite some time. Theraafter, certain ~<_i'if§"ef1'$:::a<:::$ erupted 1:*egar<:3i::1g fmancial im '§3ii}éé1iaVi1$i §_"§v'j-..Béfhat as it may, the vsiffis has flied a ;:-gititiofi . Sgeiiigzg dissolutian of tbs marriage in ' ' 123.2 I 2007 under the pravisiezz 0f Spéciai Marriagfi ; f


2. The petitiaI1er~husba11d antared appearance mad fileé statement of Qbjectians. It is not in dispute that the matter was 1'€f€I'I'€d to Mediation Ce.1;;;;s;j;;~'V:VV':.4 reconciliatian, S0 aise the imrnecl Famiiy J put an and to the acrimony bettvefiéfi net in dispute that all ei§'o1*ts:T.x§;er:;'VI;1 z*:1due t{3; 7!';.:£'i::1g" warrmg parties to same sert 0f

it also failed. T116 trial 'f.a:g:_nt '.3. cbiiéid%rab1€ period of time, the petitiogffir-' out with a tzotmter claim L;:?1{ia?;f.'Orc:i=cr Of the Cede of Civil Pro(;i3d1,fz,rfit=§§' :'1a:a1*2%;i_7€%t{i__i?-'aitxiiy Judge has Ifijfifitéd the said a1) p&{:atié1fi-- <V)i; At1'1¢§""§*,;"f*70V.£u1ci that the evidmzce has v8_EI'€£:3fi§g'.;: 'cammfiéficéfi the filing cf the appiicaiian dfziaying tactics. The said arder sf rej£~;.cti:}::1 is %j'_azgs§i'e:>"i:1&d in this writ petitian. 3" lfiaffifid cazznsei appearing for the petitianer {hat the gatifianar is 336: 'E9 commezme his . which Wonk} imcessariiy mean that the ..{:%:§ur1ter~c.1ai1°n ought to have been afltefiaineé iziasniush as Oréer VIII Rule 6(3) comempiatas that a caunierw M I


<:iai211 can be iaéged befera tbs defendant sets u§..._}3:is f3Vid€31"l{3€.

4. The learned counsel appea:é::g.A¢':.f0§§/,::: " respoI1dent~wife submits that ':

close to 15 msnths tor file st,a'?;.ameiif__ df the s"£af;e111ent of objections 119: {fiat any effort is made by reco%3.cV:Aile the differences. Hence, shev "i'i':~_ }"

5. i_11:p;3g1ed order. It is me

daubt me%%tm¢ unéer (me: Vii} Rule

6(a) gen": be '4.Ven 1'.¢:'tai1f{ed before the évidence of tha é{eferii%a1i'ZfLe:f%é1:1:ne:1ced. But hcwever, in the case 0:} 213333-%:tAT'ia~V%::;;y':;aé:Lk%:+:szieec1 that the c02.1:1£er~clai1;t3, is in the ' aatura 0f.__re$f£iu':ia:n 35 cangugai zightgg Enéeaé are efibrt .. 3'1:aéis:~~ befare {ha Maciiatiorn gamer as Well as hjgz the §€'Qg'fii;§;;°y* C:C¥ilI'{ '£9 %:'ing the partias tsgether. But hawesser, 'éfiarts have failad, In these circumstances, I an} of t?1e View that at this pain: of tirna, the quésfiari caf entertaining the c011m:er ciaim wauki mm: arise. /pg

6. The Iearnezi Csunsel appaaring for the respondent ralies on a ruiing 0f the Apex Court in case of Ramesh Chanel Ardawatiya V/S. Anil reported in Am 2003 SC 2508 wherei1:_.i_£;" observed that the purpose of

fiiizag :3? a <':01mier--C}aim is; _tf:s n1"za.3f'*:;i'12;VV1;.i;';::"iV'fiyV'A judicial proceedings and sav<é'V"L'té;j'e Buf: hawever, 1316 same is rc':§':_f,§'jLrV'4133:*ec7L_ £'0'i. ._§§;§i1&: at Vééariiest and not at a belatgsfd gfise an hand, if $16 axpp1ic:a.tfgo?5':;i'f:2§;; 'g;-fijntad, it will be utilized 'upon a re--0pening

of the back the pragess of the

.--'V.1:;roc¢:5;£:¥;ir;g°s., cf the viaw mat at this paint \:)f 15315, =1'f$*1<;e:'::?;iic2s$i0n 01" entertaiiming 23. ctounter claim daééz; xiiét If far my Ifiafififi, me petitimz sefiking ;:¥;:_$so}:j£§.0ff;«;_ éf xrlamjlage faiis, it is alizsayg apex': for the E*iL:;;:éi%:¥é1:c¥L ta Seek restitution by separate pracaadings. V' _.__ '£"hé37a is :10 merit in tlfiis petitien. Pflition stands rejected. I V M



It i$ also it) be l"1{}{iC€3€i that the matrimoniai I:;eé§:iier is pensiing sincé 2% years. In these p1"0ceed_i;i'gs; iié;_.v desirable that the parties shauid knovszf. " stand, SO that they can Chaikwsut é;': 4' H Pmce€di:1gs shall be c0§I:;p_>letedA_§Vi*:.hi11j. % fibres months fmm the date of of éfdeif; $93