IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.44299 OF 2018(GM-FC) Between:
Shakeel Ahmed, S/o late Rahmathulla Sharief, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.502, 5th Main, H.M.T Layout, Ganganagar Post, Bengaluru – 560 032.
(By Sri.Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Advocate) And:
1. Rahmathulla Kothwal, S/o Basha Sab, Aged about 45 years, No.6, Bilal Manzil, 5th Main Road, Jayamahal Extension, Bengaluru – 560 046.
2. Noor Fathima, W/o Rahamathulla Kothwal, Aged about 39 years, No.17 (JP), 6th Cross, LIC Colony, 3rd Block East, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 011.
… Petitioner …Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.6/2016 in O.S.No.107/2015 on the file of Hon’ble III Additional Family Judge at Bengaluru vide Annexure-F and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Iqbal Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, by which application filed by respondent No.1 for impleading the petitioner as defendant in the proceedings has been allowed.
4. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that respondent No.1 has filed a suit against respondent No.2 for dissolution of the marriage and seeking other consequential reliefs. Respondent No.1, thereafter, on 05.11.2016 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2 and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is still subsisting. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have filed objections to the aforesaid application and opposed the prayer made therein. The Family Court however, by order dated 06.06.2018 has allowed the application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has no connection with respondent No.2 and he is being unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. It is further submitted that the impugned order is per se illegal and irrational.
6. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the records.
7. It is well settled in law that question of impleading a party is made with an object to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. In the instant case, since respondent No.1 has taken a ground that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 still subsist, his marriage with respondent No.2 is void. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the presence of the petitioner in the suit is necessary. In any case, the petitioner is a proper party to the lis involved in the suit and the impugned order passed by the Family Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423]. In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-