- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32736 WP No. 23995 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 23995 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. RADHIKA PATIL D/O MARUTI GOWDA, D/O VAIBHAV PATIL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT GIRINER PRIDE APARTMENT, FLAT NO. D4, SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELAGAUM -590 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.V.BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RANGANATH SHIVARAM S/O SRI H SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO 89, 2ND FLOOR, HMT MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU- 560 054 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2024, PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN M.C. NO. 2279/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE- M AND ALLOWING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (A) (D) OF CPC, FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-J FOR REJECT THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32736 WP No. 23995 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.4 in M.C.No.2279/2024 dated 03.12.2024 by the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the petitioner/wife is before this court. 2. The respondent herein has filed MC.No.2279/2024 for restitution of conjugal rights in that the petitioner herein has filed an I.A.No.4 under order 7 rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the petition is not maintainable. According to the petitioner she is not the legally wedded wife and there is no relationship of wife and husband between them. In that case, the husband cannot file a MC seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said I.A came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.12.2024. 3. While dismissing the application, the family court has observed that since the petitioner has failed to specify the ground under which the petition filed by the respondent herein is liable for rejection. The said application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC is not maintainable. In the petition, he has clearly referred the date on which the cause of action accrued in his - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32736 WP No. 23995 of 2025 favour for filing the petition and he paid the prescribed court fee before the competent jurisdictional court and hence, the petition is dismissed. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the cause title the petitioner herein who is the respondent in the petition is shown as the daughter of Sri Maruti Gowda but not the wife of respondent herein. It is submitted that they have filed voluminous documents to show that there is no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the marriage is not consummated. In those circumstances when there is no relationship of husband and wife, question of restitution of conjugal rights will not arise and as such they have come up with an application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC to reject the petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the order impugned. Before proceedings with the matter it is appropriate to look into order 7 Rule 11 (a) (d) of CPC. 11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32736 WP No. 23995 of 2025 (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] Application for rejection of the plaint can be filed on any of the grounds enumerated under order 7 rule 11 of CPC. It is settled law that while considering the application for rejection of plaint the court can only look at the plaint averments but cannot look into any other documents. The court cannot even look into the written statement/objections. Looking at the plaint the respondent herein has stated what is the cause of action and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32736 WP No. 23995 of 2025 when the cause of action arose, when they have married and on what reasons they are seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Whether the marriage has taken place or not and contentions that are raised by the petitioner herein can only be considered by the court after full-fledged trial but not in an application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC. All the objections/ contentions that are raised are beyond the scope of an application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC, the trial court had rightly considered all this and had rightly dismissed the application and this court finds no reasons to interfere. 6. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0