Karnataka High Court
Smt Kavana Kuttappa vs Sri M Nishank Kariappa on 28 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42994
WP No. 6286 of 2025
C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 6286 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 15551 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
IN WP No. 6286/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT.KAVANA KUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O MR. NISHANK
KARIAPPA
D/O MR M.M.KUTTAPPA
R/AT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR
AMBERAN APARTMENTS
NO.13, MNONEYVILLE ROAD
LANGFORD TOWN
Digitally signed
by MEGHA BENGALURU -560 025
MOHAN ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. ABHILESH J., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
SRI M.NISHANK KARIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SON OF SRI M.M.KARIAPPA
R/AT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR
AMBERN APARTMENTS
NO 13, MONEYVILLE ROAD
LANGFORD TOWN
BENGALURU -560 025
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42994
WP No. 6286 of 2025
C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025
HC-KAR
(BY SRI.S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS
SUITING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 25.01.2025
(ANNEXURE-K) IN M.C.NO.4272/2021 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE I ADDL. FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU.
IN WP NO. 15551/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT.KAVANA KUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O MR.NISHANK KARIAPPA,
D/O MR. M.M.KUTTAPPA,
R/AT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR,
AMBERN APARTMENTS,
NO.13, MONEYVILLE ROAD,
LANGFORD TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 025
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI M.NISHANK KARIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O SRI M.K.KARIAPPA,
R/AT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR,
AMBERN APARTMENTS,
NO.13, MONEYVILLE ROAD,
LANGFORD TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 025
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42994
WP No. 6286 of 2025
C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025
HC-KAR
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS
SUITING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 ANNEXURE
-G IN M.C.NO. 4272 /2021 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE 1
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
IN WP.NO.6286/2025
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on memo dated 18.12.2024 in M.C.No.4272/2021 dated 25.01.2025 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the memo filed on behalf of the respondent/husband is allowed, the petitioner/wife is before this Court by filing WP.No.6286/2025.
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.
3. The husband had filed M.C.No.4272/2021 seeking divorce. In that, the wife had filed a counterclaim seeking divorce on the ground of adultery. On 16.03.2023, an order was passed by the Family Court which reads thus: -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR "Both the parties and their counsels are present.
Conciliated and it seems that there is no objection in granting the relief with regard to relationship, but the dispute lies in respect of quantum of maintenance to the respondent and her child. Therefore, parties are hereby directed to lead their evidence in respect of maintenance and the petitioner is directed to lead the evidence forthwith."
4. Both the parties had led their evidence. While this being so, the present memo is filed by the husband. He had referred to the order dated 16.03.2023 stating that since the wife had filed counterclaim in the petition and has sought for permanent alimony amounting to crores and in view of the same, the husband has led his evidence and has cross- examined the wife in detail pertaining to cruelty and adultery committed against him. In view of the same, the wife is not entitled for any relief as prayed in her counterclaim. Therefore, the Family Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree on merits of the case and allow the petition filed by the husband and thereby reject the counterclaim filed by the wife.
5. The Family Court had heard the arguments on the said memo and passed the impugned order. In the order, it is -5- NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR observed by the Court that the predecessor-in-office had passed an order dated 16.03.2023. In that, it is nowhere observed that the parties have consented before the Family Court to pass decree of divorce without adjudication and findings on the grounds invoked by them. Even otherwise, if it is taken that the parties have consented for grant of decree of divorce, then also, the parties are at liberty to withdraw the consent at any point of time before passing the judgment. Now, by filing the memo, the husband has impliedly withdrawn his consent for grant of divorce without adjudication, on the contention that the findings in respect of grounds of divorce taken by the husband are required for consideration of claim of wife for permanent alimony. As the husband has withdrawn the consent, he has requested the Family Court to pass judgment basing on the evidence available on record.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the order dated 16.03.2023 was never questioned, never altered and it remains to be there. In those circumstances, when it is agreed upon that only the evidence will be let in, in respect of alimony, the Family Court now has taken the memo -6- NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR as withdrawing the consent by the husband and held that basing on the evidence, the Family Court will pass the judgment on merits by considering the evidence let in by both the parties. It is submitted that there is a procedure for conducting the case and issues have to be framed where both the wife and husband have taken different contentions and without framing the issues, the Family Court just like that basing on the evidence adduced for the purpose of alimony, now cannot say that the Court will pass the judgment. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that the conduct of the parties is very clear as they have extensively cross-examined the husband, led the evidence extensively touching upon the merits of the matter. When that is the intention of the parties, in the light of the fact that the wife is seeking alimony running into crores, the husband has to prove that the wife is not entitled for alimony and she has committed cruelty and adultery on the husband. It is submitted that the Family Court had rightly considered the evidence available on record and had rightly held that the matter will be -7- NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR heard on the merits and basing on the evidence, the judgment will be passed and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The order dated 16.03.2023 is very clear that there is a consensus as far as the divorce is concerned and the only aspect that needs to be adjudicated is about the alimony/maintenance which the wife and child are entitled. Now, it is the contention of the husband that both the parties have extensively led the evidence which is touching upon the merits of the matter. At any point of time, if it is the intention of the parties that the matter has to be heard on the merits of it and both the parties want to prove that there is cruelty or adultery as alleged by both of them, it should have been brought to the notice of the Family Court that they want to proceed with the merits of the matter. Now, according to the learned counsel for the husband, the intention has to be seen from the manner in which the evidence is let in by both the parties and the Family Court is right in coming to the conclusion that it will decide the matter basing on the same. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR This Court is not able to appreciate this submission and the conclusion that is arrived at by the Family Court and this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. IN WP.No.15551/2025
9. WP.No.15551/2025 is filed by the wife questioning the order passed in I.A.Nos.V and VI in M.C.No.4272/2021 dated 04.12.2024 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
10. I.A.No.V is filed by the wife under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking directions to the Regional Manager, Reliance Jio, RMZ Icon, Palace Road, Vasanthnagar-560052 to produce the call detail records including details of incoming calls, SMS and also tower location details of the mobile Nos.9742714588 and 6360298385. I.A.No.VI is filed by the wife seeking directions to the General Manager of M/s. Chancery Hotel and M/s. Hilton Bangalore, to produce records of booking details in the name of Nishank Kariappa and Raksha S.V. and CCTV footage from 1st January 2020. Both I.A.Nos.V and VI came to be rejected by the Family Court.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. While dismissing I.A.Nos.V and VI, the Family Court had observed that considering the reliefs sought by both the parties, the predecessor-in-office vide order dated 16.03.2023 conciliated the parties and observed that the dispute lies between the parties is in respect of quantum of maintenance to the wife and her child. Therefore, parties were directed to lead their evidence in respect of maintenance. Both the petitioner and respondent have affixed their signature to the order, consenting to lead evidence only in respect of maintenance/ permanent alimony to the wife and her child. In the light of the above, further proof regarding alleged act of adultery committed by the husband is not necessitated for final adjudication of the petition. Further, the Family Court had observed that even though the application is filed before commencement of trial, the same was kept in abeyance by the predecessor-in-office in order to expedite the proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have let in evidence and after conclusion of final arguments, the present application is pressed into service. Nevertheless, in view of the observations dated 16.03.2023, the application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Family Court had rejected I.A.Nos.V and VI.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. Learned counsels for both the parties have argued and made submissions in line with the defence that is taken before the Family Court. In the light of the fact that this Court has already set aside the impugned order in WP.No.6286/2025 and now the Family Court is going to deal with the matter on the merits of it, both on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, this application requires to be allowed and the impugned order needs to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER i. The order passed on memo dated 18.12.2024 in M.C.No.4272/2021 dated 25.01.2025 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court.
ii. As the respondent/husband wants adjudication on the merits of the matter, considering different stands taken by both the parties, the Family Court has to frame the issues.
iii. In support of the issues that are framed, apart from the evidence on record, if either of the parties
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42994 WP No. 6286 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15551 of 2025 HC-KAR wants to adduce any further evidence, both of them are permitted to adduce the same.
iv. After hearing both the parties, the Family Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months.
v. Accordingly, WP.No.6286/2025 is disposed of.
vi. The order passed in I.A.Nos.V and VI in M.C.No.4272/2021 dated 04.12.2024 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court.
vii. The Family Court by giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties shall decide I.A.Nos.V and VI within a period of two weeks.
viii. Without further reference, the parties shall appear before the Family Court on 19.11.2025.
ix. Accordingly, WP.No.15551/2025 is allowed.
x. All I.As. in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11