1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.54316/2016 & 55665/2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJASHREE IYER W/O SRI. VATSARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. No.213/D, 3RD PHASE 6TH CROSS, IST MAIN, MANJUNATHA NAGAR RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560010.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. RAJA, FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.,) AND:
SRI. VATSARAJ S/O SRI. M.C. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT. No.B-103, GAGAN VIHAR APARTMENTS, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU-560098.
(BY SMT. INDU R. RAJ, ADV.) ... RESPONDENT THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07-09-2016 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY Court, BENGALURU ON I.A. Nos10 & 11 IN M.C. No.1795/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSQUENTLY, PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO EXAMINE THE WITNESSES & ETC., THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. R. Raja, for Mr. R.B. Sadasivappa, Adv. for Petitioner Mrs. Indu R. Raj, Adv. for Respondent 1. The petitioner-wife Smt.Rajashree Iyer has filed the present petition in this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Court below on 07.09.2016, whereby, the learned Court below in the matrimonial matter, rejected I.A.Nos.10 & 11 and refused to reopen the evidence of the petitioner-wife and to summon the additional evidence as she prayed for.
2. The reasons given in the impugned order are quoted below for ready reference:-
“2. The applications are resisted by the petitioner by filing objection wherein he contends that the parties have already led evidence, the witnesses are not required to be summoned as prayed for. The application is not maintainable hence prays foe dismissal of the application.
3. These applications are filed by the respondent/applicant praying to reopen the case and permit her to lead further evidence. She contends that further evidence is very much necessary to determine the case on hand. She has not assigned any reason for examining the witness on her behalf. Further, she has not filed any witness list at the time of her examination. No grounds have been mentioned for examining the witness to prove her case. The matter is of the year 2012, there is no merit in the applications. Since the application is bald one, it is not proper to reopen the case and permit the respondent to lead further evidence. Hence the following:
ORDER The applications filed by the respondent/applicant are hereby dismissed.
Arguments on merits by 26.09.2016”.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife urged before the Court that the petitioner deserves to be given one more opportunity to lead additional evidence, as her evidence was closed only in the year 2016 and immediately thereafter, the aforesaid I.As’ were filed for reopening and producing the additional documents. Therefore, the learned Court below has wrongly rejected these applications.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-husband Smt.Indu R.Raj has submitted before the Court that the evidence was closed in the year 2014 and no list of witnesses was initially furnished by the petitioner-wife and the matter pertains to the marriage in question to be declared as nullity as the petitioner-wife was married to some other person and against whom(the earlier husband) various cases were filed by her in the Courts below including the criminal complaint under Section 498-A of IPC, which was pending at the time of her present second illegal marriage with the Respondent and all those documents are already on the record of the learned Court below and there is no justification for reopening the evidence of the petitioner-wife at this stage, just to prolong the trial.
reasons assigned by the learned Court below, there is no justification for the petitioner-wife to be allowed to lead additional evidence at this stage.
6. There is no merit in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.