IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.55234 OF 2013 (GM – FC) BETWEEN:
MR.KARUNAKARAN PRAVEEN, S/O C.K.KARUNAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ‘SRIVALSAM’, NEAR CANNANORE REST HOUSE, TALAP, KANNUR – 670 002.
KERALA STATE.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI.SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND:
MRS.M.V.ROOPA, W/O MR.KARUNAKARAN PRAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, NO.91/5, CHINNAPPA LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, ST.THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 084.
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2012 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. PRL.JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN MC.NO.2729/2010 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HERIEN VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner.
Mr.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has sought for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.2729/2010.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent whereas, respondent has filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent herein for divorce on the ground of jurisdiction and the Family Court by order dated 06.12.2012 rejected the said application.
5. This petition is pending before this Court since 2014 in which, no interim was passed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence in this suit is being recorded. Therefore, at this point of time, I am not inclined to adjudicate the validity of the order passed by the Family Court. However, it is hereby directed that the issue with regard to maintainability of the petition instituted by the respondent shall be adjudicated by the Family Court without being influenced by the earlier order dated 6.12.2012 at the time of deciding of the petition on merits.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ