Karnataka High Court
Smt Uma C Swadimath W/O B J Indushekar vs Sri B J Indushekar S/O D V Jagadish on 10 April, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2012
BEFO RE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL
W.P.NO.45700 OF 2011 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN
SMT.UMA C SWADIMATH
W/O B.J.INDUSHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.63, 2ND FLOOR
1ST MAIN ROAD
LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS
BANGALORE 560 003.
-
PETITIONER
(BY. SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, ADV.)
AND
SRI. B .J INDUSHEKAR
.
S/O D.V.JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.477, 9TH MAIN
40TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE -560041.
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.B.SHIVA KUMAR ADV. FOR C/R)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAY
ER
TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.10.11 PASSED
ON
I.A.NO.10 IN M.C.NO.1433/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
II
ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT. BANGALOR
E
VIDE ANNEX-E.
ThIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The respondent-husband files a petition under Section 12 (1) (a) or in the alternate Section 13 (1) (A) of the Hindu Marriage act seeking dissolution of the marriage on various grounds.
2. Suffice it to note that on service of notice the petitioner-wife filed her objections.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner makes an application i.e., I.A.No. 10 seeking a direction that the respondent be subjected to medical examination to prove his potency. The said applicati on has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitione r is before this Court.
3. I have heard Smt.Pramila Nesargi. learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. I am of the view that the impugned order certainly cannot be faulted for mo re than one reason.
5. Indeed, it is not the ease of the respondent husband that the marriage wa s not consummated because of either his impotency or the impotency of the wife. What has been stated is that the marriage could not be consummated because there was reluctance on the part of the petitioner-wife to have sexual relation with the respondent-husband . The statement of objections filed by the petitioner
-wife does not in any way indicate that the responden t-husband is impotent and is not in a position to con summate the marriage. Insofar as the question of subjecting either the petitioner or the respondent for medical examination to confirm their respective potency does not arise.
6. Indeed, it is also to be notice d that it is not the only ground that the dissoluti on is sought but on various other grounds. In the absence of any pleading by either side regarding their res pective potency. I am of the view that either of the par ties cannot undergo the 4 ignominy of undergoing medical examination. Having said so, I am of the view that the application filed by the petitioner-wife is misconc eived. Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interference does not ari se.
Petition stands rejected.
It is also brought to my notice that the proceedings were initiated in the year 2003 seekin g dissolution of marriage.
In a proceedings of this na ture both the parties are requir ed to know their fate at the earliest point of time. Th e Family Court to conclud e the proceedings itself within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a co py of this order.
fUDGe ss