Nivas Sainath vs Leena Elizabeth Nivas on 28 July, 2017

1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

WRIT PETITION No.33193/2017 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

Nivas Sainath
S/o Late Mr. R Sainath
Aged about 31 years
R/at 2135, 16th B Main
HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar
Bengaluru-560 008. …PETITIONER

(By Sri Arun Kumar K, Adv.)

AND:

Leena Elizabeth Nivas
W/o Nivas Sainath
Aged about 31 years
No.77, 1st Cross
Indiranagar 1st Stage
Bengaluru-560 038. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri Azhar Meer, Adv. for C/R(Absent))

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 227
of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the
orders dated: 19.04.2017 at Annexure-A passed by the
II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru
and allow clubbing of M.C.No.5089/2014 C/W
Date of Order 28-07-2017 W.P.No.33193/2017
Nivas Sainath Vs. Leena Elizabeth Nivas

2/5

M.C.No.5162/2014 and G and W.C.209/2015 on
I.A.No.7.

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:-

ORDER

Mr. Arun Kumar K, Adv. for Petitioner
Mr. Azhar Meer, Adv. for C/Respondent(Absent)

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

that despite entering the caveat on behalf of the

Respondent-Leena Elizabeth Nivas through Mr.Azar

Meer, learned counsel for the Respondent, he has not

been able to serve a copy of the petition upon him, as

the said advocate has informed him that he is out of

town for next 10 days.

2. The Petitioner also made an effort for serving

the copy of the petition on Respondent herself in the

family Court below, but she did not accept the service.

READ  Arun Goyal vs State on 25 April, 2017

Date of Order 28-07-2017 W.P.No.33193/2017
Nivas Sainath Vs. Leena Elizabeth Nivas

3/5

3. The only prayer made in the present case is

that the learned Family Court of II Additional Principal

Judge, Bengaluru has rejected the prayer of the

petitioner to club the trial of the connected matters

arising out of the same matrimonial dispute between

the same parties, one being for Restitution of Conjugal

Rights, other being for Divorce and third one under the

Guardians and Wards Act. The reasons assigned by the

learned Court are quoted below for ready reference.

“3. I have heard the arguments and
perused the case papers. No doubt M.C.
5089/2014 and M.C.5162/2014 have been
clubbed together, because one petition is
filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights,
whereas the other petition is filed for divorce.
The evidence and findings of both the M.C.
cases would be similar. But the findings and
the evidence in G WC. Case would
definitely be different and distinct from the
M.C. case. More over, any case which have
to be clubbed together, the applications of
this nature had to be filed before
commencement of evidence in all the cases.
But already in M.C. case the evidence of
Pw.1 is completed and it stands posted for
cross-examination of P.W.1. Therefore,
clubbing G WC case at this stage with
M.C. case would definitely cause much of
Date of Order 28-07-2017 W.P.No.33193/2017
Nivas Sainath Vs. Leena Elizabeth Nivas

4/5

inconvenience and confusion in leading
evidence and the final order of G WC
would be completely different from that
would be passed in the two M.C. cases.
Therefore, the clubbing application filed is
liable to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the
following,
ORDER

I.A.No.7 filed by the respondent
U/sec.7 and 10 of
Family Courts Act is here
by dismissed.

II Addl. Prl. Judge.”

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons

assigned by the learned Court below is not sustainable

and it would have better served the cause of justice, if

all the three connected cases arising out of the same

matrimonial dispute were tried and decided by the said

Court simultaneously to avoid any conflicting orders

and the evidence taken in one case could be usefully

used in other connected cases also.

Date of Order 28-07-2017 W.P.No.33193/2017
Nivas Sainath Vs. Leena Elizabeth Nivas

5/5

5. The impugned orders, therefore, are liable to

be set aside. The same is set aside. Present petition is

allowed. Learned Court below is directed to try and

decide all the three cases simultaneously.

Copy to be sent to the Respondent as well as to

the Court below.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *