Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
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;