Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77521 (KAR)

SHRI S SHIVAKUMAR v. SMT VANITHA SHIVAKUMAR

WP/23021/2025 · 2025-12-05

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51401 WP No. 23021 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 23021 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI S SHIVAKUMAR, S/O SHRI M SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.ADARSH GARDENS, GROUND FLOOR, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH-5600078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.SHRIHARI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT VANITHA SHIVAKUMAR, W/O SHRI. S SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.268/2B, 12TH MAIN, 23RD CROSS, E BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA THIRD STAGE, MYSURU-570017. 2. KUM. SALONI, D/O SMT. VANITHA SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.268/2B, 12TH MAIN, 23RD CROSS, E BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA THIRD STAGE, MYSURU-570017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS NO.52/2019 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. PRL. FAMILY JUDGE Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51401 WP No. 23021 of 2025 AT MYSORE QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.07.2025 IN OS NO.52/2019 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. PRL. FAMILY JUDGE AT MYSORE FILED AND MARKED AS ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Trial Court in declining to treat issue No.3 as Preliminary Issue. The suit is admittedly filed before the Family Court. The defendant raised a contention that the Family Court does not have a jurisdiction to decide the suit. The Trial Court held that the issue requires evidence. The Court is of the view that the plea raised by the defendant is a pure question of law. Under these circumstances, the issue ought to have been considered as a Preliminary Issue. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51401 WP No. 23021 of 2025 3. Hence, the impugned order is set-aside. 4. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to treat the Issue No.3 as a Preliminary Issue. 5. In case, the Court finds that the Court has jurisdiction, then the suit has to proceed further. In case the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, the Trial Court has to return the plaint to the plaintiff to present the same before the appropriate Court. In such a situation, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff before the Family Court shall be treated as a Court fee to be paid in the transferee Court. 6. The exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 7. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the party relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. That question is to be decided by the Court by referring to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51401 WP No. 23021 of 2025 averments made in the plaint, written statement and the provision of law. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 ...