IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.43905/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. S.V. SHYLAJA W/O. N.A. ANIL KUMAR D/O. Y. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT No.1239/1 OPP. POLICE QUARTERS SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 562 125.
(BY SRI. MAHESH L., ADV.) AND 1. SRI. N. A. ANIL KUMAR S/O. R. ALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 2. SRI. R. ALLAPPA S/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. SMT. S. T. SOWBHAGYA W/O. R. ALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT:No.172, SRI. MATHRU KRUPA ... PETITIONER 8TH CROSS, GANGOTHRI ROAD SIT EXTENSION TUMKUR CITY – 572 101.
4. SMT. SMITHA W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 5. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SANNA CAHHAYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.4 & 5 ARE RESIDING AT: ANNAPA SMRUTHI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. GOVERNMENT BUS STAND, HALIYAL UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 329.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3; NOTICE TO R-4 & R-5 IS D/W V/O DATED 30.07.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, IN CRL.MISC.NO.1357/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS THE ORDER IMPUGNED IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON’BLE APEX COURT IN APPAYA SWAMY AND SHANMUGUM CASE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Mahesh L., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, by which the application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, has been rejected.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of this court to order sheet dated 17.03.2016, wherein the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3 had submitted before the court below that the matter is likely to be settled and time was sought for reporting settlement and to post the matter on 23.04.2016. Thereafter, on 23.04.2016, the petitioner filed a memo stating that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, she sought permission to withdraw the proceedings and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 25.04.2016.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was given to understand that she would be permitted to reside with the respondent in the matrimonial home and therefore the petitioner withdrew the proceedings initiated by her. However, admittedly, there is no amicable settlement.
6. In fact, the fact that no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents as well. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that once the petitioner has withdrawn the proceedings, she cannot be permitted to seek for recall of the order.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is well-settled law that if an order is procured by a party from the court of law by playing fraud, the same is vitiated in law (See ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. RAJENDRA SINGH & OTHERS’ (2000) 3 SCC 581). Since the order passed on 25.04.2016 has been obtained by playing fraud on the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore it is quashed. In the result, the impugned order dated 07.07.2018, is also quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE RD