Karnataka High Court
M S Sanju vs Veena on 24 August, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 _ BEFORE THE HONTBLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL: ' WRIT PETITION No.21904/2010 BETWEEN M S SANJU S/O SIDDALINGE GOWDA AGED 35 YEARS 4' I _ » R/AT KOPPA SUGAR FACTOR'-I ; _ NOW R/AT AMBIKA SUGAR FACTORY-. ' ., CHUNCHANAKATTE KR; NA.(3ARrfALUK MYSORE DIS'rRi«::f1f'.-- 2: X A V. ... PETITIONER (By SR1:*r,VA'KARUMi3A:AH:&"P C VINITHA, ADVS.) AND A A .}_")'/Q V':.JAYAKUMAR AGED' 31'YEAR.S R/A71' No~.35'4.' A 3: 1%; BLOCK. --.. -._ ' =.GOWA'RpANA NILAYA, "NAv1LU ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR "*MY.SO;RE NOVVR/A'1' NO1281, 1ST CROSS _ ROOPANAGAR MYSORE. RESPONDENT-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA PRAYING-r.TO QUASH ANNEX-F THE ORDER DTD 19.6.10 PASSE."D_'BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAMILY COURT MYSORE "l;A:' _ FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 26' RULE21@_A ' OF CPC IN M.C.NO.189/04 AND ALLOVJ.__"::ffiwIE.. SAID '~ APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMINO._ON,_FOR 'PRELIMII-mi? HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THECVFOLLOWINO; 1. ' The petition seeking dissolution of including one of l V petitioner makes an Rule 10A of Code of Civil Procedure su-bjxecting the respondent to a medical the ground stated in the application. iTh'e'__Saga'-1.,Vlajfiplieation is seriously opposed by the V dd _ respondent» on the ground that there is no necessity for it it it l " .L,.aiievving"'the application.
3. The learned Trial Judge having regard to the evidence, which is let in and the proceedings heid in-Camera was of the View that this is not a case wherefi -3- the respondent should be subjected to a medical examination inasmuch as it is not the case petitioner that the respondent-- wife is frigid.__ at 4». Learned counsel appearing submits that the respondent examination has consenteg1~..%'hat she 'miayw to a medical examination. . y I
5. I have perused"thefimpu<gried order.
6. Apparently th.e5.'tenovrr' of, the cross«exarnination would';indicate° thatrth'e._T1narriage was not consummated without any _ of the respondent. But hoxvever; not "wh_e_re. it is suggested that she is »iricompAatibE,e""v .__a:nd is frigid and is incapable of the marriage. The learned Family Judge has4"foun_d.Vthat it is wholly unnecessary to subject the A X1' "respondent to a medical examination.
7. Having perused the impugned order, I am of the View that question of granting the request of the K petitioner does not arise. It is open for the petitioner to Q ..4_ lead evidence in support of his averments made in __the petition.
Petition stands rejected