IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20 1 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GU1\§g;aLVr%ee.: ' O WRIT PETITION NOS.25276w-1'77 BETVVEEN : J.E.George, S/o.Late George Joseph, Aged about 70 years, Residing at No.382, 100 feet Road, HAL II Stage, & _ , _ _ V_ . Indiranagar, 'O 4' Bangalore -- .f'36O_«QIf$O8-.':'~_V_< " _ ...PE'I'I'I'IONER (Byt Sr_i.Néfi*ke$t1._A.dX'. for /S.Na1'1c1"1=.Law 'Chambers, Advs.) AND V:_ _ O George, E """ " 'V '-.W/o.Sri.J.E.GVeorge, Ageti _zii3oV1."1t_ 63" ;re':;:rs, Residing at C] " Dr. Srnriti,Geo,1'ge, --UnitN'o.2";_N.o.22~A «. _. f '<_(3-ross Road, Myrtle Bank, Adelai-<;1e,SA--5064 ...RESPONDENT (Ey Sri.N.Nataraj, Adv.) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set--aside and quash the common order dated 03.08.2009, (Annexure-A) passed on interim appiications, dated 15.12.2007 vide Annexures 'D' by the IIIrd Addl. Principal Judge, Family .C;0I;l'I___"23Vi Bangalore in M.C.No.692/99. These Writ petitions coming on~fo_rA this day, the Court made the fol1ou;jing;_oA? 3 ' ORDER
Both the petitioner-husha,:nd,_and” the :e:spon:d’e’r1t:.o
wife are in the evening… of their}-i’.fe-;r.’TheAwifevogseeks
dissolution of the marriage-_e_in”1\xi§§’C’.Ni§;e9.2/’1999 on the
ground of It appears
during. {them the. firooeedings, the wife
maintainedan applicfatio’né_isee’king interim maintenance.
The app.1ication_:V for” maintenance is made nearly two
V’y’esr_s’*— {latter misting’ the proceedings. The said
on today is pending. The petitioner–
husband V__v’n2ai’ntained two applications, one under
“”-:i.”i””–Sjec.tion of the Code of Civil Procedure and another
Crder 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the
it of Civil Procedure for expunging the averments
insofar as the adultery and bestiality are concerned.
I
The said application would stem from an order passed
by this Court in the earlier proceedings. Suffice it
that the learned §’amily tludge has ‘
consideration of the said applications
husband on 17.12.2007 on the
disposal of I.A.6 for maintenaneep:;’>./t.he of”the
petitioner for expunging d it considered.
Aggrieved by the said before this
Court.
2. I counsel appearing for
the petitioner- as the respondent–wife.
The petitioner that on the face of it,
__the aiiegations regarding adultery as well as bestiality
Vcariiriot be ‘sus_tai_ned inasmuch as the provisions of the
would contemplate that adulteresses
‘should bernade a party to the proceedings inasmuch as
‘is«.._reduired to defend that such an act has not
___”‘happened. Insofar as bestiality is concerned. he submits
ullthat no material is forthcoming in support of such a
plea. /fl
4./:,”‘
00044?
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that before the applications of the
petitioner is taken up for consideration, the appliclatio-nj
for maintenance is required to be considered_”{irstl;”He it
would press into service the order g_
on an earlier occasion. é l V V p A
4. Indeed the proceediiags have-~.V_
career inasmuch as iivsraslivvbefore
this Court in W.P.l\_Io. the order
on I.A.Nos.”Ii’ said”applications were filed
for deletion of the of adultery contained in
paras _5_ to dismiss the main petition as
adult’erCes5ses”are not”ti’1’ade as co-respondents. The said
disposed of by this Court on 22376′
Novélnber» confirming the order passed by the
id”3:§”.””learned ll Judge regecting the application for
A udlcleticin of paras 5 to 19 regarding adultery.
” “petition, an application was filed seeking modification of X?
5. It appears after the disposal of the writ
/
.3,/.7″
the order. The said application was dismissed for non-
prosecution. Thereafter, another application is
recall the order of dismissal of the _
modification. The said recalling app1ication”‘ in
dismissed on the ground that the
support of the application the not
by the party. The said;__rejectip0nV:A’sf the for
recailing was Carried in The
Apex Court has_::set–as’iVde ‘ the
application for” application for
modificatiofi; tirodght to the notice of
the Judge has recalled the
entire order on 22nd November 2007,
Twhipchns. ‘produpcedflalonng with the synopsis at Annexure
§}_. has observed thus:
A nothing to be reviewed since all the
orders passed in W.P.No.18822/2005 have
_ ‘T been set~aside by the Apex Court in its order
Tdated 13~04~2oo9 Annexures ‘D’ restoring
E the writ petition in its original number ” or
disposal on merits”. In that view of the
42
//’6′
matter, no review lies and is accordingly,
rejected. ”
6. The learned Judge was of the View that *
orders passed by this Court in the
including the order dated 22,11.2tt0o7?At i’s
status now would be W.wli’;1:\:’§;o~..1p8E5A.22/.Z{)V(V}»f:*3_:A
pending adjudication vbefore hit”-is~’:§to be
noticed that the subject”rnatter.dtrth:atV:vrrit’petition and
the present inasmuch
as they are in respect of
C ind’eed the subject matter
of that adultery whereas in the
present. writpctition, ‘adultery as Well as bestiality.
“reason givenhvbyhthe learned Family Judge for
reiectiVon.,_VTofh. application is, on the basis of a
directi_onV_ by this Court inasmuch as this Court
” directed that the application for maintenance by the
e.1*~*tV_V’1*espondent is required to be considered. Indeed
regard to the order passed by this Court in the
it ” ” review petition. which is referred to above, I am of the
/
I-//-/.’fl
-7-
View that there is no order. of which benefit can be
extended either to the petitioner or to the responderit._::”.__
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains .
the husband and wife are in the evening of _-their:iives.V”It if
is time that they are required to knew if
earliest point of time. W_ithout…tlie
maintainability of the applications for’ –.eXpnnginAg_c§ertain
averments insofar as V bestiality is
concerned andgvdeletionfofi’ adultery, if a
direction is Judge to
conc1ude__th_e’ itself, that would meet
the ends jti’s’tice:’ l if if
it Since llthevapplication seeking maintenance is
iperiding .adjuc;licvati0n for a period of eight years, at this
poii’i’\§’~..oAf directing the learned Family Judge to
‘ ‘oonsidler 4’ said application before considering the
of the petitioner on merits would be wholly
____””i1nn.ecessary. Hence, the following order:
7%
..//5″.”
(a)
(bl
(0)
(dl
rnaii1tainabi1AityV”””of the applications.
ifiguestioii «
_-fsxis A
The learned Family Judge to dispose of the
main petition itself seeking dissolution of
marriage within a period of two months]
the date of receipt of this order.
Both the counsel assuresfl t_
will (:o~operate with the Co1.,>iV1_*_!”.A to
an early disposal ._neeeVssa1y_s’iia’i~lvl on
with the matter on day basis.__
With this obsefvatiori.;:’ th’e’l:f_petitions stand
disposed,_pfac’eoi'<iingiy}.__V I
for the husband to
:'s:iieh-».,§rovuhds.which are available to
him. to refute the ailegations
of ' aauiteiyi 'fibestiality including the
The
maintainability shall be
H: considered along with the main petition.
safii
Jfidfi