- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31906 WP No. 13430 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13430 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. AJEET KUMAR JAISWAL S/O LATE N.P. JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O H.NO.3-3-120/A, CHAPPAL BAZAR, KACHIGUDA, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE – 500 027 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHU L., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. REENA JAISWAL W/O AJEETH KUMAR JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT MAHAYOGA BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, NO. 45/46 3RD MAIN, SECOND PHASE AMRUTHA NAGAR KASAVANAHALLI BENGALURU- 560 035 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MC NO.7646/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31906 WP No. 13430 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.7646/2023 dated 11.03.2025 by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru whereby I.A.No.3 filed by the husband under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 Read with Section 151 of CPC came to be dismissed, the husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the wife had filed M.C. No.7646/2023 seeking divorce. In that she had filed I.A.No.4 seeking maintenance. The husband had filed I.A.No.3 under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the paint. It is the case of the husband that the marriage had taken place in Hyderabad and the wife had created a rental agreement and Adhaar card for the purpose of filing the petition. According to him, the wife has continued to reside in Hyderabad till 05.08.2023. It is stated that prior to the filing of the present case, she is residing with the help of her elder son in a rented - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31906 WP No. 13430 of 2025 house as shown in the cause title. According to the husband, the present M.C. is not maintainable before the Family Courts at Bangalore and the Family Courts at Bangalore have no territorial jurisdiction to try this M.C. 4. The Family Court had considered the contentions of the respective parties and particularly Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Considering the same, the Family Court had observed that the documents produced by the wife, prima facie discloses that she is a resident of Bangalore as on the date of presentation of the case and onwards and held that the petition before the Family Court, Bangalore is maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has reiterated the very same grounds that are raised before the Family Court and submits that the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife has supported the order passed by the Family Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. When an application is filed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31906 WP No. 13430 of 2025 seeking rejection of the plaint, the Court cannot consider any other material, but can only look at the plaint alone. The plaint reveals the cause of action and according to the wife, she is living in Bangalore and Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives choice to the wife to file the petition where she is residing. Whether the said Adhaar card and the rental agreement are concocted or created for the purpose of this petition, the Court cannot decide. The material on record as per the plaint reveals that she is residing in Bangalore. In that view of the matter, the Courts at Bangalore have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18