Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
WP No. 28402 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.28402 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. SANGEETHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
D/O DR.JAYAKUMAR JEGANATHAN
R/AT NO.1103, MARIAN PROMENADE,
KADRI KAMBLA ROAD,
MANGALURU - 575 004.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. JAGADISHCHANDRA KAMATH.,ADVOCATE(VC))
AND:
MR. SRIRAM RAMACHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O G.RAMACHANDRAN
R/AT NO.6A, KAMBLA HEIGHTS,
KADRI KAMBLA ROAD, KADRI,
MANGALURU - 575 003.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SRIRAM RAMACHANDRAN-(PARTY–IN-PERSON)(VC))
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 04.07.24 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL.
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALURU, DATED 04.07.2025 (AT ANNEXURE-A) ON 1.A. NO. 3
FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C. NO. 107/2025 AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION IN 1.A.NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BY REJECTING
THE MAIN PETITION IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN M.C. NO. 107/2025
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 16.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 -
WP No. 28402 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of
I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru
in M.C.No.107/2025 dated 04.07.2025, the respondent
therein has filed this petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the
proceedings will hereinafter be referred to as husband and
wife.
3. Wife filed I.A.No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 (A)
(d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the
petition for want of cause of action. The Family Court has
dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in view of
the fact that there is cause of action.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner – wife contends
that the marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2009 at
Kandhasami Rajammal Mahal in Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu
as per Hindu customs. The petitioner is an
- 3 -
WP No. 28402 of 2025
Ophthalmologist and respondent is a Software Engineer by
profession and out of the wedlock, two sons were born.
She contends that she is living separately since 2018 and
the husband has filed G & W.C.No.8/2018 on 19.06.2018
before the Family Court seeking custody of the minor
children. The wife is subjected to mental, physical and
financial harassment and therefore, sought for dissolution
of marriage on 29.06.2020 in M.C.No.144/2020 and the
Family Court granted decree of divorce along with
permanent alimony on 28.03.2023. The Family Court
refused to grant custody of the minor children in G &
W.C.No.8/2018 vide judgment dated 17.02.2020. The
husband aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal
before this Court in MFA No.3481/2020 and subsequently
filed contempt proceedings arising out of MFA
No.3481/2020 in CCC No.526/2020 and the same was
disposed of on 01.07.2021 granting liberty to both parties
to work out their custodial rights involving the minor
children in MFA No.3481/2020. The petitioner preferred
application seeking maintenance and the Family Court
- 4 -
WP No. 28402 of 2025
granted maintenance for a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month
and the husband challenged the same before this Court in
W.P.No.18352/2022 and this Court has upheld the order of
the Family Court and directed the husband to pay
maintenance. Again the husband in order to harass the
petitioner preferred contempt proceeding arising out of
MFA No.3481/2020 in CCC No.325/2023 and same was
disposed of on 12.10.2023 granting interim visitation to
the husband. This Court disposed of MFA No.3481/2020
dated 12.10.2023 and challenging the same, husband has
filed SLP (C) No.7211-7213/2024 on 16.01.2024, which is
still pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The
respondent – husband has filed M.C.No.107/2025 seeking
restitution of marriage under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner filed an application for
rejection of the said petition contending that the same is
not maintainable in view of the prior decree of divorce and
constitutes an abuse of process of law. Hence, prays to
allow the petition and set aside the order of the Family
Court on I.A.No.3.
- 5 -
WP No. 28402 of 2025
5. Per contra , the respondent – husband contended
that the application filed by the petitioner – wife is abuse
of process of law. It is submitted that the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband after the
stay of decree of divorce by this Court is very much
maintainable. The application is hit by principles of res
judicata . Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner – wife and respondent – husband (party-in-
person) and perused the material on record.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is limited. The Court is required
to examine only the averments in the plaint/petition and
not the defence raised by the opposite party. In the
present case, the respondent – husband has pleaded that
the marital relationship subsists on the score of the stay
granted by this Hon’ble Court and therefore, sought
restitution of conjugal rights. Mere grant of decree of
divorce, which is under challenge and stayed by this Court
- 6 -
WP No. 28402 of 2025
in MFA No.3666/2023 dated 27.06.2023, cannot, at this
stage, conclusively render the petition under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 non-maintainable. The
contentions raised by the petitioner–wife regarding delay,
alleged mala fides, multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of
process are all matter requiring adjudication on evidence
and cannot be decided at the threshold under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC.
8. Further, the question as to whether the
respondent’s petition is bona fide or an afterthought is a
question of law, which must be determined during trial.
The Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed
by the petitioner–wife seeking rejection of
M.C.No.107/2025. Accordingly, this Court finds no
perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by
the Family Court. The order is well-reasoned and does not
call for interference under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the
writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
- 7 -
WP No. 28402 of 2025
9. In view of the above observations, I proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
dismissed
i. The Writ Petition is .
ii. The impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed
in M.C.No.107/2025 by the I Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, stands
confirmed.
iii. All contentions of the parties are kept open to
be adjudicated by the Family Court on merit.
iv. No order as to costs.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MH/-