The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8147/2024 (FC) BETWEEN: DR.RAKSHAY SHETTY S/O. DR. P. RAVINDRANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT D.NO.503 DS AND JAKS NEEDS 3 PROJECT 276 DODDAKAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD KALENA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560 076 ALSO AT: A05, ZONASHA PARADISO ALPINE ECO RD. ZONASHA PARADISO FERNS PARADISE, DODDANEKKUNDI BENGLAURU - 560 037 (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:
Legal Reasoning
SMT. CHANDINI SHETTY W/O. DR. RAKSHAY SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.1352, BHUJA RATHNA 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE 5TH CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE KARNATAKA - 560 040 ALSO AT A05, ZONASHA PARADISO ALPINE ECO RD, ZONASHA PARADISE FERNS PARADISE, DODDANEKUNDI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 037 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2024 PASSED IN M.C.NO.1608/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTIONS 12(1)(a) AND 13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Though the matter is coming up for admission, with the consent of both parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Assailing the order of rejection of his petition for divorce exercising power under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner in M.C.No.1608/2023 on the file of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore has preferred this appeal. 3. The appellant was the petitioner and the respondent was the respondent in M.C.No.1608/2023. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 4. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11.02.2008 at Udupi. The parties are Hindus and are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short). 5. The petitioner filed M.C.No.1608/2023 under Sections 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(ia) of the Act seeking decree of nullity of their marriage or in the alternative for decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 6. The respondent on appearance before the trial Court filed I.A.No.3 under Order VII rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC read with Section 12(2)(a)(i)(ii) of the Act read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint/strike off the pleadings. After the petitioner filing the counter to the said application, she withdrew that application on the ground that the application contains technical defects. After withdrawal of the said application, she filed I.A.No.4 again under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint/strike off the pleadings. 7. In the application, the respondent contended that the meaningful reading, the petition does not disclose cause of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 action and the petition is barred by law, as the petition is filed under Sections 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The petitioner/husband filed his counter to the said objections. 8. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application under Order VII Rule 11(d) and allowed the petition under order VII Rule 11 (a) on the following grounds: (i) Despite granting opportunities, the petitioner neither addressed oral arguments nor filed written arguments. (ii) Cause of action for filing the petition under Sections 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(ia) of the Act are different. (iii) Paras 1 to 12 of the petition do not disclose the cause of action. (iv) Petition averments disclose that the petitioner and the respondent after their marriage on 11.02.2008 stayed together till 2022. The specific date on which the cause of action accrued to the petitioner to file the petition is not stated in the petition. 9. It is settled principle of law that cause of action is bundle of facts and that has to be gathered on reading the entire pleadings. Mere absence of recital that ‘cause of action’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 to the suit/petition arose on a specific date, itself does not amount to absence of cause of action. 10. It is also settled law that for rejecting of the plaint/petition exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to look only into the plaint/petition averments and not the contentions in the written statement/counter filed by other side. 11. It is also settled law that the plaintiff/petitioner can seek alternative relief. Considering the same, the trial Court itself has rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC i.e. on the ground of bar of law in filing the petition. Regarding consideration of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in para 7 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal1, it was held as follows: “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and 1 (2017) 13 SCC 174 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. So far as non-consummation of marriage, the alleged period of long stay from 2008 to 2022 is the question of fact which has to be decided only on the parties adducing the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 evidence. Therefore the trial Court was in error in rejecting the petition on such ground. Similarly, the ground that the specific date for cause of action is not mentioned, hence there is no cause of action is also erroneous. 13. The petition contained the facts relating to the marriage of the parties. The petition also contained allegations of the respondent employing abusive language against the petitioner to make and comment about his age, intellect and belittling him. Petition also contained the allegations about mental cruelty. It was also alleged that the marriage was not consummated due to non-cooperation of the respondent. There are allegations of other acts of cruelty. In the light of such allegations, the trial Court was in gross error in holding that reading of the petition does not disclose the cause of action. The impugned order is grossly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Hence the following:
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint is hereby set aside. I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent/wife in M.C.No.1608/2023 is hereby rejected. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16281-DB MFA No.8147/2024 Petition before the trial Court is hereby restored. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 03.06.2025 without further notice. On appearance of the parties, the trial Court shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Pending IAs stood disposed of. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33