- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28743 WP No. 19317 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 19317 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. CHETHANKUMAR K SON OF LATE K.C. KAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.72/30, BALAJI TEMPLE ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BYADARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. VEDA B WIFE OF CHETHAN KUMAR.K, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF BHAIRAPPA, C/O SMT. GIRIJAMMA, WIFE OF RAMACHANDRAPPA, RESIDING AT MANJUNATH NILAYA, NO.100/1, 8TH CROSS ROAD, 3RD HOUSE FROM ANDINI MILK PARLOUR, SRI. LAKSHIM NARASIMHA SWAMY PROVISION STORE, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BYADARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 091 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DATED. 03.05.2025, PASSED ON I.A.NO., VIII FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C.NO.5246/2022, ANNEXURE-D BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28743 WP No. 19317 of 2025 AND THEREBY ORDER TO ALLOW IA NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER- VI, RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION-151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2025 passed on I.A.No.VIII in M.C.No.5246/2022 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the husband is before this Court. 2. The husband had filed M.C.No.5246/2022 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner had stated about the manner in which the wife was behaving and how rudely she is behaving with everyone and as the petitioner could not tolerate her behavior, he has come up with this petition. After the cross examination of the petitioner/husband is completed, at that point of time, he had come up with the instant I.A. No.VIII under Order VI Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings. Now by way of this amendment, he wants to incorporate that the petitioner is not the biological father of the child and according to the petitioner, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28743 WP No. 19317 of 2025 it would not make any change nor the relief that is sought is not changed. The Court by order impugned had dismissed the petition. While dismissing the petition, the Court had observed that it is clear in his petition that the petitioner has not disputed the material fact. But now with the present IA he is trying to incorporate that he is not the biological father of the child born to the respondent/wife. Hence, if the amendment petition is allowed, certainly it would amount to withdrawal of admission. Now the case is posted for the respondent's side evidence. So the Court of the view that as the husband did not deny that he is not the biological father of the child in his original petition. This amendment cannot be allowed and accordingly dismissed the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings particularly paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14 which reads as under: 5. Petitioner and the respondents are working in private company earning good income and it was informed by the respondent to the petitioner that she had no desire to marry the petitioner and the said marriage was done forcefully as per the wishes of her parents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28743 WP No. 19317 of 2025 6. The petitioner submits that the respondent did not have any desire and did not fully desire and duties as the wife of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner submits that after the marriage the respondents used to go the house of her parents and would not return for many days without any reasons and just cause and did not return to the house of the petitioner. 8. After the interventions of the elders from both side of the petitioner and the respondents family the respondent did not show any desire to return to the house of the petitioner and it was informed to the petitioner and his family members that respondent she not willing to go back the house of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner submits that after a few months it was informed by third parties of the petitioner family that the respondent is conceived and not informed to the petitioner as the husband. 13. The petitioner submits that for outside world the petitioner and the respondent were living as husband and wife but within the four wall they are living as stranger and living separately from last two years and the respondent is not will to live the petitioner as the wife. 14. Since the few months of the marriage there is no cohabitation between the petitioner and the respondent and they are living separately for a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28743 WP No. 19317 of 2025 long period of time even after the petitioner and his parents tried to pacify the relationship and there was many panchayath are held in the presence of the elders and well wishers but all the efforts are went in vain and the respondent was not looking petitioner property as dutiful wife. 4. 4. Particularly drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph 9, learned counsel submits that after a few months it was informed by third parties to the husband’s family that the wife is conceived and it is not informed to the husband. Relying on paragraph 9, learned counsel submits that already he had laid a basis for these pleadings in I.A.No.9, but the same was not elaborated. It is submitted that, it is very much essential for deciding the disputes between the parties. Further, by incorporating these pleadings, the nature of the suit is not changed. No prejudice is caused to the wife. Further, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the stand. As such, the Court ought to have allowed the amendment. Learned counsel submits that the Court ought not to have dismissed this application, which is very much crucial for the case of the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28743 WP No. 19317 of 2025 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The petitioner/husband had filed the M.C. seeking divorce. The whole basis for that is cruelty. In the petition, he had narrated the adamant nature of the wife and how often she is staying away from the matrimonial home and how rudely she is behaving with the husband and the in-laws. In paragraph 9, it is stated that she has not even informed that she is conceived and they came to know from the third party. Then in paragraph No.13, it is stated that for outside world both of them were living as husband and wife but within the four walls, they are living as strangers and living separately from the last 2 years and the wife is not willing to live as the wife and there is no cohabitation between them and since some months they are living separately. Even after that, the husband and his parents tried to pacify their relationship and there were many panchayats held in the presence of the elders and well wishers, but all the efforts went in vain. Hence, the husband had filed the petition. 6. At any stretch of imagination, this Court cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the husband had laid a basis in the pleadings that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28743 WP No. 19317 of 2025 the wife is living in adultery and he is not the biological father of the child. He narrated in the entire petition about the act of cruelty on the part of the wife and now by way of this amendment, he is saying that he is not the biological father of the child. The petitioner is setting up altogether a different case and by virtue of this amendment, the admission that he has made all through, he is now going to take away such important admission that too after the trial has commenced. In those circumstances, the Court had rightly decided and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the family Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) All IAs., in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK