Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shankara Gowda C Doddamani vs Smt. Roopa Shankara Gowda C Doddamani on 14 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31810
WP No. 45449 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 45449 OF 2015 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANKARA GOWDA C DODDAMANI
S/O. CHANDRAGOWDA DODDAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.103, B-2 BLOCK,
KRISHNA APARTMENT,
NGV KORAMANGALA BANGALORE
OFFICE AT ROOM NO.550,
5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE -560 001.
(AS PER THE CAUSE TITLE
IN ORDER
WORKING AT NO:553,
5TH FLOOR, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, K R CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally
...PETITIONER
signed by
SUMA (BY SMT. PRAMEELA NESARAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
Location: SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR C.,ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
SMT. ROOPA SHANKARA GOWDA C.DODDAMANI
D/O SHANKAR GOWDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.103, B-2 BLOCK,
KRISHNA APARTMENT,
NGV KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560047.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31810
WP No. 45449 of 2015
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD.22.9.2015 VIDE ANNEX-D AND DISMISS THE
MISC. NO.55/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Misc.No.55/2011 by which, the exparte judgment and decree granted in M.C.No.2127/2010 was set aside.
2. The petitioner herein being the husband filed a petition for nullity of his marriage with respondent under Section 12(1)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was registered as M.C.No.2127/2010. The notice of this petition was purportedly refused to be accepted by the respondent and hence, she was placed exparte and a decree of nullity was passed on 18.02.2011.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:31810 WP No. 45449 of 2015
3. The respondent thereafter filed Misc.Petition 55/2011 denying that she had refused to receive the notice of M.C.No.2127/2010. After recording her evidence, the Family Court in terms of the order dated 22.09.2015 allowed the petition and set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed in M.C.No.2127/2010 and granted an opportunity to the respondent to contest the petition on merits by filing her objections. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the exparte judgment and decree was passed on 18.02.2011, the petitioner had married Smt. Vanitha on 22.05.2011 and that from the marriage, they have two children who were born on 10.04.2013 and 18.08.2015. She further contends that this was brought to the notice of the Court in Misc.P.No.55/2011, but none the less, the court without considering the impact of restoring the case, set aside the decree of nullity passed in M.C.No.2127/2010. She contended that it is now impossible to undo the events that have transpired in the life of petitioner and respondent and -4- NC: 2023:KHC:31810 WP No. 45449 of 2015 therefore, no purpose would be served in reviving M.C.No.2127/2010.
5. The respondent has remained absent and is not represented by any counsel.
6. The documents placed on record discloses that the petitioner has already married another person and they already have children from the marriage. Thus the question of now reconsidering the petition for nullity would not arise. None the less, the conduct of petitioner in belatedly disclosing the filing of M.C.No.2127/2010 in the petition filed by the respondent in C.Misc.No.43/2010 under the Domestic Violence Act, 2002, itself shows that the petitioner was not honest. Bet that as it may, since this Court has felt it inappropriate to now undo the decree in M.C.No.2127/2010 due to the change in circumstances, the allegations of the petitioner in M.C.No.2127/2010 has to be kept open to be proved by the petitioner in any proceeding that may be filed by the respondent. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, -5- NC: 2023:KHC:31810 WP No. 45449 of 2015 the impugned order passed by the Family Court deserves to be interfered with.
Consequently this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Misc.No.55/2011 dated 22.09.2015 is set aside.
However, the allegations of the petitioner herein that the respondent/wife was suffering from congenital heart disease and that it was not disclosed to him before the marriage, shall be proved by him in an appropriate case initiated by the respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41