- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.27442 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: DHIRAJ KUMAR S/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 2, A N SUBBA RAO ROAD 3RD MAIN , 5TH CROSS HANUMANTHA NAGAR BENGALURU - 19 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAMU.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNEEL S NARAYAN.,ADVOCATES) AND: SAPNA JAIN D/O HUKMICHAND SURANA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO 16, 8TH CROSS LINGARAJAPURAM ST THOMAS TOWN P O BENGALURU - 84 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SNEHA A KALRO. ADVOCATE & MS. SONIA RAJESH., ADVOCATE ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/10/2023 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED IN M.C. NO. 2788/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IVTH ADDL. PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE AND THEREBY ALLOW THE CLUBBING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AT ANNEXURE-E. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Family Court on the application filed by him seeking to club the proceedings in MC No.2788/2021 alongwith G & WC No.162/2021. The said application - I.A. No.6 filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The respondent/Smt. Sapna Jain filed a petition in M.C. No. 2788/2021 seeking for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner/husband. She also filed a petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the minor children Master Divij Jain and Baby Nishta Jain and to declare her as legal guardian of the children, which is pending adjudication before the 4th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application - I.A. No.6 in M.C. No.2788/2021 seeking to club said petition with G & WC No.162/2021 and to try both the matters together in order to avoid any conflicting decisions and to save the precious time of the Court and also the parties. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel that the Family Court dismissed the application without taking into consideration that the issues involved in both the matters are of similar nature and by conducting joint trial or by clubbing both the cases together, the time period will be curtailed. Infact, the divorce petition is filed by the respondent/wife alleging cruelty and the guardianship petition is filed to declare her as legal guardian of minor children. Therefore, the issue involved in both the matters is with regard to material discord between the husband and the wife and the custody and guardianship rights of the father and the mother over the children. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the facts of the case are also almost similar in both the petitions and the parties are already before the Court. In the divorce petition, the case is posted for cross- examination of respondent/wife (PW.1) and in the guardianship - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 petition, the case is posted for further evidence of PW.1. He further contends that the learned Family Judge has come to the conclusion that the evidence in both the cases cannot be taken up together, which is erroneous and arbitrary. Infact, it will not affect both the parties if the common evidence is adduced and on the contrary, it will save time of the parties and so also it will expedite the proceedings in both the matters, which is in the interest of both the parties. On these grounds, he seeks to set aside the order passed by the Family Court and to allow the application – I.A. No.VI and consequently permit clubbing of both the matters and trying together. 4. Per contra, learned counsel - Smt. Sonia Rajesh for the respondent vehemently contends that the petition filed for divorce by the respondent/wife has reached the stage of cross- examination and the matter is posted as a last chance for cross-examination of PW.1, whereas in the guardianship petition, the evidence of the petitioner is yet to be completed. Therefore, I.A. No.VI is filed by the petitioner to protract the proceedings by adopting delay tactics. It is also contended by learned counsel that the evidence in these two proceedings would be different by the respondent as in the divorce petition, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 it would be on the ground of cruelty and in the custody/guardianship petition, it would be with regard to the paramount interest and welfare of the minor children. On these grounds, he seeks rejection of this petition by sustaining the order passed by the Family Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and they have two children from the marriage viz., Master Divij Jain and Baby Nishta Jain. It is also not in dispute that both the petitions are filed by respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband. M.C. No.2788/2021 is filed for divorce, whereas G & WC 162/2021 is filed seeking custody of the minor children. The averments made in both the petitions are similar and the objections filed to the main petitions are also similar. What may differ is in the divorce petition, it has to be decided with regard to cruelty alleged by one party against another and in the guardianship petition, rights of each party and who would - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 be a better parent have to be decided. Ultimately, the interest and welfare of the minor children will be taken into consideration to decide the same and of course with the opinion of the children. 7. The divorce petition is at the stage of cross- examination of PW.1 and in the guardianship petition, the evidence has not come to an end. Since the pleadings are same in both the petitions, this Court is of the opinion that if the divorce petition is taken as a lead petition, opportunity and liberty could be granted to the respondent/wife to adduce further evidence with regard to her contentions in the guardianship petition including any further material being placed as a documentary evidence and so also additional witnesses, if any and thereafter the petitioner/husband could be permitted to cross-examine PW.1 in both the divorce petition and the guardianship petition together. By following the process of recording common evidence, the time of the parties would be saved so also precious time of the Court and it would protect the interest of both the parties. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 8. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the application – VI (Annexure-E) filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 151 of CPC to club the divorce petition along with guardianship petition deserves to be allowed in the interest of the parties as well as for speedy disposal of the cases. 9. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 26.10.2023 on I.A. No.VI vide Annexure-F is hereby set aside and the application - I.A. No.VI (Annexure-E) filed under Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. The matters before the Family Court in M.C. NO.2788/2021 and G & WC No.162/2021 are ordered to be clubbed and tried together before the same Court. iii) In view of the fact that both the petitions are of the year 2021 and the matter has reached the cross- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3420 WP No. 27442 of 2023 examination of PW.1 in the divorce petition, the Family Court shall decide both the matters expeditiously. iv) It is needless to mention that in the event, the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance is pending adjudication before the Family Court, the same shall be decided in accordance with law expeditiously. v) The Family Court shall decide the matter within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25