Karnataka High Court
Sri M P Panish @ Srinivas vs Smt M K Roopa on 19 June, 2017
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.25753 OF 2017(GM-FC)
BETWEEN :
Sri M.P.Panish @ Srinivas,
S/o.Sri Thimmaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
R/o.#185, A & B Block,
6th Cross, Navilu Road,
Kuvempunagar,
Mysuru - 570 001. ... Petitioner
(By Sri P.Mahesha, Advocate)
AND:
Smt.M.K.Roopa,
W/o.M.P.Panish,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o.Mellahalli Village,
Ravandoor Hobli,
Periyapatna Post and Taluk,
Mysuru District - 570 001. ...Respondent
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
passed by the learned Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on
I.A.No.II/2007 in M.C.No.167/2016 dated 19.04.2017 vide
Annexure-E and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has called into question the order, dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure-E) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on I.A.No.2/2017 in M.C.No.167/2016. The respondent filed M.C.No.167/2016 invoking Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the decree of nullity of marriage on the ground of impotency of the petitioner and the consequent non-consummation of the marriage. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed I.A.No.2/2017 seeking a direction to the petitioner to subject himself to the impotency test for ascertaining his physical fitness for conjugal relationship. The Family Court has allowed the said I.A. and directed the parties to suggest the name of the doctor to whom the petitioner can be referred for undergoing potency test.
2. Sri P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has not formulated the point for consideration. He submits that it has formulated the point as to whether I.A.No.2/2017 is maintainable. He submits that the Family Court ought to have formulated the point as to whether I.A. for potency test can be filed in a matrimonial case. Since 3 the point formulated itself is improper, the impugned order is consequentially erroneous, so submits Sri Mahesha.
3. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. My perusal of the impugned order shows that the evidence placed on the record of the Family Court is indicating that the marriage is not consummated. The Family Court has every power to order a person to undergo the potency test. It is also worthwhile to notice that the petitioner himself has admitted in the course of cross-examination that there are no problems for him to undergo the potency test. Subjecting himself to the potency test, would not put the petitioner to any loss or prejudice. On the slender ground that the framing of the point could have been more specific, this Court's interference is not warranted. The petitioner is not taken by surprise. He has filed objections to the I.A.No.2/2017. He had availed of full opportunity to resist I.A.No.2/2017.
4. Not finding an iota of bonafides, much less merits, I dismiss this petition. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-