- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44006 WP No. 26655 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26655 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. MUKKATIRA NEETH AIYAPPA S/O MUKKATIRA DADA BOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT ECHOOR VILLAGE, KUNDA POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.K. MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SHRUTHI AIYAPPA W/O MUKKATIRA NEETH AIYAPPA, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44006 WP No. 26655 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANTHINAGARA, PONNAMPET, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 202. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED ON 1.A. NO. IV IN M.C. NO. 7/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44006 WP No. 26655 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in IA.No.IV in MC.No.7/2024 dated 11.07.2025 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet, whereby the Family Court had rejected an application that is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short), the petitioner/Husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as the husband and wife for the sake of convenience. The wife had filed MC.No.7/2024 seeking divorce. The husband has come up with this application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC stating that the marriage was solemnized with the respondent/wife on 02.02.2017 and they have a daughter from the wedlock, who is aged about 6 years, she is studying in 1st standard. Earlier, the wife had filed MC.No.36/2020 seeking relief of divorce, the husband had filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The two cases were compromised in Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the wife had filed a criminal case against husband and her parents in Crl.P.No.4370/2020 and a compromise petition was filed and case was closed. It is stated that this is the second round of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44006 WP No. 26655 of 2025 litigation by the wife. He has been harassed and tortured by the wife for no reason. Now he has filed MC.No.7/2024 for restitution of conjugal rights and the Family Court by the order impugned had rejected the said application. While rejecting the same, the Family Court had observed that the wife in her petition in paragraph No.18 she had clearly stated that in the month of June-2023, the husband brutally assaulted her and due to which she sustained injuries. After the incident, the husband ousted her and the children from the house and she has taken shelter in a parental house. Since then she has been residing separately. 3. The Family Court observed that in the petition she has specifically pleaded the cause of action to file the petition. The averments made in the petition itself indicates that the wife has cause of action to file the present petition. The husband has filed his objection to the main petition wherein except denying paragraph No.18 of the petition averments, he has not averred anything about the cause of action. The plain reading of the petition averments clearly reveals that the petition discloses cause of action. The pleading of the wife is triable - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44006 WP No. 26655 of 2025 issue and the same cannot be rejected at the threshold. The cause of action is a bundle of facts, which will be necessary for the wife to prove in order to get a relief from the Court. The facts narrated by the wife comprehensively suggest a bundle of facts. Hence, the contentions raised by the husband are not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, dismissed the same. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that there is no cause of action for the wife to file this petition. In the earlier round of litigation it is compromised and they are living amicably, there is no cause of action for her to file the divorce. It is stated that the husband has brutally assaulted her, which is not a correct fact and there is no cause of action. The Family Court ought to have allowed the IA, which is filed under Order VII to Rule 11 of the CPC. The learned counsel further submits that wife had stated that he has been brutally assaulted, but no document is filed. It is submitted that further proceedings may be stayed and there may be a notice to the respondent and the matter may be referred to the mediation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44006 WP No. 26655 of 2025 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record. This Court has perused the IA that is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. A bare reading of the affidavit, though nothing has been specifically, it appears that the contention of the petitioner is that there is no cause of action for the wife to come before the Court. When an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Family Court can only look at the pleadings in the plaint and the plaint contains cause of action. Whether the said facts that are stated in the cause of action are correct or not can only be decided during the course of the trial. Basing on the pleadings that are taken in the IA that is filed, cannot be a reason for the Family Court to reject the plaint. Further, as rightly observed by the Family Court, it is for the wife to prove that what all has been stated by her and the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has rightly been rejected. It is not necessary that all the evidence has to be placed along with the petition. The party, who is pleading will have to substantiate their case and that is not the reason for the Court to reject the plaint. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44006 WP No. 26655 of 2025 6. The next submission of the learned counsel is that there may be a notice to the respondents, to grant stay of all further proceedings and to refer the matter to the mediation concerned. When there is nothing wrong with the impugned order, question of issuing notice or staying the further proceedings in the MC will not arise. If the petitioner wants to refer the matter to the mediation, he can request the Family Court. 7. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ii) All IA's pending shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE JY- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8