Karnataka High Court
Mr. Dhevarath A.C vs Smt. Likitha R on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31166
WP No. 8823 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 8823 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MR. DHEVARATH A.C.,
S/O. H. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.6/4, 6/5,
2ND CROSS, POOJA GARDEN,
KALKERE, HORAMAVU POST,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHEVARATH A.C., PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
SMT. LIKITHA R.,
D/O MR. RAGHAVENDRA D.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by REP BY SPA HOLDER SMT. NIRMALA G.K.,
MEGHA W/O. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA D.,
MOHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Location: BOTH R/AT NO.151,
HIGH COURT VISHWANATH NAGENAHALLI,
OF
KARNATAKA R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 05.03.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE V ADDL.
PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT IN M.C.6828/2022 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31166
WP No. 8823 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the
proceedings in M.C.No.6828/2022 on the file of V Addl.
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru whereby the Trial
Court by proceedings dated 05.03.2024 had observed that the
learned counsel for the respondent had filed application under
Section 340, 195 of CrPC regarding fabricating the documents.
It requires evidence and it is a direction matter. Therefore,
office is directed to register the separate Miscellaneous petition.
PW1 is present and partly cross examined till 1.40 pm. Cross
examination deferred and for further cross examination of PW1
the case was posted on 06.03.2024. Now, the husband is
before this court as party in person seeking a direction from
this Court that the perjury application has to be decided first
then the matter has to be proceeded.
2. It is the case of the husband that the wife had filed the
M.C.No.6828/2022 seeking divorce. In that she had stated that
the relief that is sought in the said petition granting a decree of
divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the
NC: 2024:KHC:31166
respondent which was solemnized on 15.09.2021 at "Sri Kshetra
Dharmasthala Manjunatha Swamy Temple, Dharmasthala" and
the same got registered before the Registrar of Marriages,
Gandhinagar on 16.09.2021. It is the case of the husband that
the marriage had taken place at Bangalore but not at
Dharmasthala. The relief that is sought by the wife itself cannot
be granted and in the earlier criminal proceedings she had
mentioned about Bangalore. All these shows that the wife had
committed forgery as such the Trial Court has to hear the
perjury application and should pass an order that the wife had
made wrong statement before the Trial Court. He had relied on
an order passed by Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case
of Dr. Praveen R. Vs. Dr. Arpitha in W.P.No.19448/2015,
dated 31.08.2021 wherein the Court relying on several
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the
applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the
earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the
unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would
befall the perjuring parties. He had relied on the another
judgment of the Telangana High Court in case of G. Sandeep
Raju Vs. G. Preethi and another in Crl.Petition.No.2558/2024
NC: 2024:KHC:31166
dated 05.03.2024, whereby the Trial Court had not taken up
the petition under Section 340 of CrPC on the ground of it
might impact the proceedings on the maintenance case. Then,
the Court had given a direction that the perjury proceedings
have to be decided first. He had also relied on the another
judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of
Ramesh Asht Vs. U.T. Chandigarh in CRM-M No.55350/2023
(O & M), Dated: 06.11.2023 relying on this judgment, the party
in person submits that the perjury application has to be decided
before proceeding with the main matter.
3. Having heard the party in person, perused the material
placed on record. The wife had filed the petition seeking
divorce. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage had taken
place, according to him the place where the wife had
mentioned is not where the marriage had taken place and she
had committed forgery. In that regard he had placed some
documents before this Court, all these documents are also
relevant for the Court to decide this divorce petition, whether
the marriage had taken place at Bangalore or at Sri Kshetra
Dharmasthala Manjunatha Swamy Temple, Dharmasthala, all
those issues goes to the root of the matter. In this case, this
NC: 2024:KHC:31166
Court finds that there is no necessity to decide the application
first and the Trial Court in its usual course can decide the
application. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere.
Hence, the following,
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
ii. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
