Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 742 (KAR)

Sanjay P. Naidu v. Rupreka Bhaskar

2014-08-20

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The parties were married on 17.06.2010. Petitioner filed M.C.No.43/2013, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act'), in the Family Court at Bangalore, to grant a decree declaring the marriage solemnized on 17.06.2010 as a nullity. Respondent filed M.C.No.1120/2013, under Section 13(1)(i) and (i-a) of the Act, in the Family Court at Bangalore, to grant a decree of divorce. 2. Petitioner filed I.A., under Section 10 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, on 03.02.2014, in M.C.No.1120/2013, to stay all further proceedings of the case, till disposal of M.C.No.43/2013, pending on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Bangalore. Considering the nature of petitions, said I.A. was rejected by the Prl. Judge, Family Court. However, M.C.No.1120/2013 was made-over to the I Additional Family Court, Bangalore for disposal along with M.C.No.43/2013. To quash the said order, this writ petition was filed. 3. Heard, Sri Sarat Chandra Bijai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Shwetha Anand, learned advocate for the respondent and perused the writ record. Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order calls for any interference? 4. In CHITIVALASA JUTE MILLS VS. JAYPEE REWA CEMENT, (2004) 3 SCC 85 , with regard to scope of Sections 10 and 151 of CPC and in the matter of consolidation of the cases, Apex Court has held as follows: "12.........The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the court flowing from Section 151 CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the civil court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision." In view of the above principle of law, no exception can be taken to the order passed in making-over M.C.No.1120/2013 to the I Addl. Family Court, Bangalore, wherein M.C.No.43/2013 is pending. 5. In AJAY LAWANIA VS. SHOBHNA DUBEY, (2010) 15 SCC 354, the husband filed a petition to grant decree of divorce and the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Family Court, Bangalore, wherein M.C.No.43/2013 is pending. 5. In AJAY LAWANIA VS. SHOBHNA DUBEY, (2010) 15 SCC 354, the husband filed a petition to grant decree of divorce and the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. A transfer petition filed, was allowed and the parties being common, both the petitions were directed to be disposed off together. Writ petition and writ appeal, having been dismissed and a direction having been given for expeditious disposal of the case filed, under Section 13 of the Act, by the wife and the Apex Court having been approached for relief, it was held as follows: "4. It is well settled that if two petitions are filed under the Act, one under Section 9 and the other under Section 13, then, in order to avoid conflicting decisions, it is expedient that both the cases are heard by the same court. Evidence in the two cases should be recorded one after the other, arguments should be heard separately and thereafter, separate judgments should be delivered on one day." The said principle of law squarely applies to the instant case. 6. Learned advocates submitted that, in M.C.No.43/2013, trial has commenced. The Family Court, Bangalore is directed to conclude the recording of evidence in M.C.No.43/2013 first and thereafter, record the evidence in M.C.No.1120/2013. After completion of recording of evidence in both the cases, the Trial Judge should hear the arguments separately, one after the other and thereafter, decide the two cases, by separate judgments, which should be delivered on the same day. Resultantly, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there is need to direct the Trial Court to decide the cases with expedition and on or before 30.04.2015, subject to both parties extending co-operation and not seeking unnecessary adjournments. Petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.