- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8651 WP No. 33106 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 33106 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. KAUSHIK M.S, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE M.C SUBBAIAH R/A NO.1154, 2ND CROSS, PADUVANA ROAD, 4TH STAGE, T.K.LAYOUT, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE - 57. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.C. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ADVIKA KAVYA PARALAKOTI W/O KAUSHIK M.S, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8651 WP No. 33106 of 2025 1ST CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, KAMALANAGAR, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THUSHANATH C.V, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18-09-2025/ ANNEXURE -A PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN THE PROCEEDING O S NO. 199/2025 ON I A NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (A) AND (D) OF CPC SEEKING REJECTION OF PLAINT AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE PLAINT BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8651 WP No. 33106 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Seeking the Court to set aside the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A. No.IV in O.S. No.199/2023 dated 18.09.2025, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri. M.C.Ravikumar learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on 28.01.2026. The submission made by Sri.Thushanath C.V learned counsel for respondent was heard on 30.01.2026. Reply given thereafter by learned counsel for the petitioner was also heard. 3. The suit is between litigating spouses. Petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. Petitioner/husband filed a petition seeking decree of divorce. On the other hand respondent/wife filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent/wife also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining her husband from contacting another marriage during subsistence of marriage with her. The said suit came to be numbered as O.S No.199/2023 and the same is pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. In the said suit petitioner/husband filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC i.e., I.A No.IV for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8651 WP No. 33106 of 2025 rejection of plaint. The said petition stood dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no cause of action for the respondent/wife to file such a suit and indeed petitioner/husband did not intend to go for another marriage. Learned counsel stated that as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, one of the conditions to marriage is that neither party should have spouse living at the time of marriage. Hence petitioner/husband cannot marry without obtaining a decree of divorce. Thus, the suit filed by respondent/wife is frivolous and devoid of cause of action. Therefore, entertaining the application filed by the petitioner, the Family Court ought to have rejected the plaint but it did not do so. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the averments in the plaint should form basis to come to a conclusion whether there is cause of action for the suit or not. Learned counsel contended that petitioner and his family members started searching for an alliance and respondent/ wife came to know about the said fact and to resist petitioner from contacting another marriage while his marriage is subsisting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8651 WP No. 33106 of 2025 with her, she filed the suit seeking permanent injunction and therefore the suit is maintainable. 6. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the averments at para Nos.11 to 14 of the plaint. Respondent/wife clearly made a mention about the information she received regarding search for another alliance by petitioner and his mother. Whether those contentions are genuine or not is to be decided by the competent Court after full fledged trial. 7. On going through the contents of the plaint, this Court is of the view that cause of action for filing the suit is clearly indicated by respondent/wife. Therefore, trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint. Thus, holding that the writ petition lacks merits the following:- ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23