- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 21514 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVINDRA SHIVRAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVRAM SHETTY, ‘UDAYA NIVAS’, KUNTALPADI, SANOOR VILLAGE, KARAKALA TALUK - 574 104. EMAIL. rsshetty1984@gmail.com …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SUSHMITHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O SRI. SADHU SHETTY, 5-84, PAYYARU MADHYA GUTHU, 108-KALATHUR VILLAGE – 574 106, KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. EMAIL.sushmitha28shetty@gmail.com …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA V. R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.C.NO.73/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM KARKALA AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART-HEARD, 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:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1 in M.C.No.73/2022 dated 16.08.2023 by the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Karkala, whereby the trial Court had rejected I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner/husband under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. M.C.No.73/2022 is filed by the husband under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking nullity of marriage. It is stated that the wife has been suffering from nauseating infectious skin disease on her private part and on both her thighs and because of the disease, the marriage is not consummated. The sexual act between the parties is only at the peril of suffering infection of the said skin disease. This material fact was suppressed by the wife before marriage and the husband came to know about it. If the wife had disclosed the skin disease on the vital parts of the wife, the husband would not have married her. The consent of the husband for the marriage was obtained by material suppression of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 physical deformity and medical treatment she has been undergoing for the disease. The medicine by the dermatologist which is being applied to the body also smells very bad. The important purpose of marriage itself has become useless. Hence, the husband has no choice than to seek dissolution of marriage on the very ground of suppression of material facts. It is further stated that the wife is subjecting the husband and his mother to ill-treatment by repeated quarrels and she is insulting and intimidating the husband. She has also been often intimidating that she would commit suicide so as to incriminate the husband of abetment of suicide. On the ground of non- disclosure or suppression of material fact of the contagious skin disease of the wife, the husband is constrained to file the application seeking annulment of the marriage between the parties. The husband had issued a notice dated 23.09.2022 through his counsel which was refused by the wife and the notice was subsequently sent through e-mail and WhatsApp. This M.C. is filed in the year 2022. 4. I.A.No.I is filed by the husband under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC on 27.06.2023 seeking permission to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 carry out amendment in the petition. The husband has stated that in the written statement/counter claim filed by the wife, she has made baseless allegations and all these allegations are act of mental torture upon entitling to seek the dissolution of marriage between the parties. The marriage is irretrievably broken down and the wife had made deceit upon the husband and it is impossible for the husband to live with the wife when all these allegations are made. Hence, he wants to incorporate the paragraph as follows: "1) In the petition add after para 9 as 9a) Without prejudice to the contentions and relief sought herein, it is further submitted that for any reason the court holds that there was valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, which the petitioner does not admit, the conduct of the respondent in making various unfounded and false allegations against the petitioner and his mother in her written statement/counter claim have caused unbearable agony and anguish to the petitioner. They are acts of mental torture and agony. The marriage is irretrievably broken down. It is impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent when she has made all those baseless and untrue allegations against him and his aged mother. In addition to this, the respondent was also insulting the petitioner's mother and quarrelling with her endlessly. The respondent has filed false complaints against petitioner and his mother before the police at Bangalore, subjecting them to intimidation and harassment, which also amounts to cruelty. The petitioner is entitled to the the grant of decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties. Hence this relief is claimed as an alternative relief." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 2) In the relief column after word "Void" add "alternatively for decree dissolution of marriage between petitioner and respondent in this petition" 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time of amendment of pleadings, the trial Court cannot go into the merits of the matter and the amendment petitions have to be ordered liberally. Further, he relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Dr.Rajasi @Swapna Vs. Dr.Shashank1 at paragraph No.16 which reads thus: "16. A petition was not filed for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. Section 14 is applicable to a petition for divorce which is filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and not a petition for nullity under Section 11 or 12. Nullity of marriage is altogether of different status than divorce. Therefore, if there is a prayer for nullity of marriage, the petition is to be presented within one year as sub-Section 2 of Section 12 lays down that no petition for annuling a marriage on the ground specified in Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) shall be entertained if (i) petition is presented more than one year after the force has ceased to operate or as the case may be, the fraud has been discovered. Thus, the petition was filed not under Section 13 for divorce but, for nullity under Section 12. Filing of the petition within one year from the discovery of the fraud or after the force has been ceased to operate is mandatory and, therefore, the petition was rightly filed within time under Section 12. However, in the said petition, there is an alternative prayer for divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the petition, there are averments in respect of the instances of cruelty and, therefore, alternative relief of divorce is prayed as the marriage was consummated between the parties. Alternative prayer of divorce in the petition for 1 2015 (6) Mh.L.J. 872 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 nullity is neither contrary nor inconsistent and can be entertained by the Court. The Judge, Family Court is not found at fault taking view that the Court when heard the matter and the evidence of the parties was recorded found that the parties were residing separately since March-2007, i.e. for more four years so bar under Section 14 will not come in the way. We are in agreement with the pragmatic approach taken by the learned Judge, Family Court while entertaining the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) though it was presented within one year from the date of the marriage. One important point is also to be noted that if a party wants to seek an alternative relief for grant of decree of divorce in a petition for nullity of marriage filed within one year, then it will be cumborsome for the party to file another petition for divorce after one year. This leads to multiplicity of the proceedings. Hence, the prayer for divorce can be made alternatively in the petition for nullity if filed within one year. If nullity prayed, itself makes an exceptional hardship. In the case of Mr.X (Supra), the petition was filed before the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. Leave was granted by the trial Court. In paragraph 7, the Division Bench held that "the trial Court has rightly granted the leave and it was held that the appellate Court will not interfere with the trial Judge's discretion unless he has proceeded on a wrong principle of law, or failed to have regard to some material consideration or some gross injustice has occurred". Needless to mention that after all it is left to the Judge, Family Court to consider whether the parties have an exceptional hardship and prima-facie the petition can be entertained for nullity under Section 12(1)(c). There should not be routine practice to file a petition for nullity and put an alternative prayer for divorce under Section 13 giving a go-bye to the statutory provision under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act." 6. It is submitted that in a divorce petition seeking nullity of marriage, alternatively prayer for divorce on the ground cruelty was made. Relying on this, it is submitted that the alternative prayer is maintainable. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that by way of an amendment, the parties cannot be permitted to take inconsistent pleas and the same cannot be allowed and already a counter claim is filed seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In those circumstances, the husband cannot be permitted to come up with this kind of inconsistent pleas and the trial Court had rightly held that the inconsistent pleas cannot be allowed and rightly rejected the application. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The trial Court had considered the judgments that were relied on and certain judgments to show that inconsistent pleas can be allowed. The trial Court had observed that inconsistent pleas should not change the entire nature of the case itself. The authority relied upon by the counsel for the husband is regarding the mortgage of the property, where the plaintiff is seeking the relief of dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that such nature of inconsistent pleas by the parties can be claimed and consequently has allowed the amendment. But this authority is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 not applicable to the instant case, since the husband himself is under a doubt whether the marriage is null and void or marriage is valid. Therefore, either the husband has to addict and propound that the marriage is null and void or has to accept that the marriage is valid and then seek the decree of dissolution of marriage. Now if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will admittedly change the nature and the colour of the case. Therefore, though there is provision for amendment of the petition at any stage of the proceedings, the amendment should not be allowed as it changes the entire nature of the case. Hence, the husband cannot travel in two boats at the same time and accordingly rejected the application. 9. In this case, by the time this application was filed, the issues were already framed which means the trial has commenced. After the M.C. is filed, wife has also filed her counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Apart from seeking two inconsistent pleas one declaring marriage as void and the other seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, will alter the nature of the proceedings itself which cannot be allowed. In the facts and circumstances, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37159 WP No. 21514 of 2023 judgment that is relied on by the learned counsel for the husband do not apply to this case and in the light of the fact that the trial has commenced and the reasoning that is given by the trial Court is a well considered one and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33