Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
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

DATED THIS THE 15%: my 0? DECEMBER 20<39:[%%jT



WRIT PETITION No.3449§.i/ 2é): C3 .'§?(C§1.\}§.§'P--'.:C}V.  '


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
% 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

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



<:iai211 can be iaéged befera tbs defendant sets u§..._}3:is


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 / -5- 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;