- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 30533 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUNANDA. C. V. W/O. SRI. YASHVANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT CHALDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 126. NOW R/AT.4/1, SLV BUDDAIAH NIVASA, 1ST C CROSS ROAD, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU- 560 054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. YASHVANTHA KUMAR, S/O. SRI. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT ABBANI VILLAGE, HUTTUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AMARESHA M., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A) AND Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 (d) OF CPC ON 24/06/2024 IN M.C.NO.4618/2021 BY THE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.6 in M.C. No.4618/2021 dated 24.06.2024 by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru whereby an application filed by the wife under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, the wife is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case of the husband that he had filed the M.C. seeking divorce. In the petition he had referred the wife as “sadistic tendencies” and used to call her sadistic, which amounts to cruelty and which shows his attitude towards her. Further, the allegation of the husband that she frequently visited her brother's house situated near their house, she refused to cohabit with him and to have child and she also - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 refused to quit the job, does not amount to cruelty. It is in- segregable part of liberty of a woman to have reproductive choice and she cannot be forced to give birth to a child. She being the post graduate in M.Tech, has been working as Assistant Professor in R.R. Institute of Technologies, Bengaluru. Continuing her job also does not amount to cruelty. It is the case that they were residing in a separate rented house as agreed prior to the marriage and the husband without her knowledge and consent, vacated the rented house and shifted all the household things to his native place including her educational certificates, clothes, jewels and started insisting her to leave the job and to stay in his native place, which is nothing but short of cruelty. So, the husband’s petition is manifestly vexatious and without merit. Since the petition does not disclose the cause of action to seek decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The husband being wrong doer, who has subjected her to cruelty, is debarred from entitling the relief of divorce. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition by allowing I.A.No.6. The husband had taken objections to the same and filed his objections. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 4. The Family Court, by order impugned, had dismissed the petition and had observed that at paragraph No.5 of the petition, the petitioner had specifically averred that on the date of marriage, nuptial was arranged in the house of the respondent, but she complained that she was not happy with the marriage and she refused for consummation of marriage and asked for six months time to accept the petitioner as her husband. Her behavior had continued the same. Petition averments clearly makes out with regard to the cause of action for filing the petition. On the other hand, there is no law barring the husband from filing petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per the petition averments, marriage between the husband and the wife is solemnized as per Hindu customs and rituals and the photographs substantiate such rituals having followed. The respondent had admitted the contents of paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the petition with regard to solemnization and registration of the marriage. Though the application is filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), there is nothing to make out that the petitioner is being barred by any law. If the contentions of the applicant is looked into whereby she had stated that the husband had made allegations against - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 her saying that she is sadistic and treated the husband with cruelty. So, in turn this had caused mental cruelty to the wife. It is her contention that the averments of the petition is manifestly vexatious and without merit. So, if at all the contentions alleged in the petition are without merit, it has to be brought out by means of evidence and proved by the preponderance of probabilities. Whether the petitioner himself is wrongdoer is also to be established after full-fledged trial. Hence, the application is filed by the wife is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that all the allegations that are made does not amount to cruelty and according to them, there is no cause of action for filing the petition and the same has to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ husband submits that it is the M.C. of the year 2021. Right from the year 2021 till 2025 the wife, one after the other is coming up with the applications, but not proceeding with the trial. It is submitted that this is one of such a vexatious petition filed by the wife. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The present I.A. is filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC reads thus: “11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (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; 1[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] 2[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] 3[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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 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.]” 8. This Court, for the first time is coming across an I.A. seeking rejection of the plaint at the threshold saying that the allegations that are made will not amount to cruelty and in fact, it amounts to cruelty imposed on the wife and the wife wants the Court to decide the application and as the husband had called her statistic and he had made several averments as such that does not amount to cruelty and there is no cause of action for the husband. This is a novel ground invented by the wife and on these grounds if this application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is allowed, every petition has to be dismissed. If at the threshold, if the Court has to decide that whether the said allegations amount to cruelty or not, there is no need to conduct the full trial. Now, this application is filed under VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC say where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. According - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29462 WP No. 30533 of 2024 to the wife, the cause of action what is shown by the husband is not a cause of action and it is not cruelty. Hence on that ground, it has to be dismissed. Then, Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, under which law the present petition is barred, is not stated. On the face of it, the application that is filed by the wife is only a vexatious application for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings and the Family Court had rightly dismissed the application. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to pass 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.: 65