High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 KAR CK 0043

George Henry Monis vs Mrs. Janet Monis

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 4 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.S. Patil, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 40665 of 2011 (GM-FC)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 357 words

B.S. Patil

1.

In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, in M.C. No. 4/2011 on 30.09.2011, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to refer the matter for reconciliation is deferred with a direction to the parties to complete their evidence and after completion of the evidence the request for referring the matter for reconciliation would be considered.

2.

Petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 4/2011 which is filed by his wife seeking dissolution of the marriage. He has made this request when the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. It is also to be noticed here that the petitioner has filed another petition in M.C. No. 9/2003 u/s 32 of the Indian Divorce Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both these cases are clubbed. The Court below has refused to entertain the request for sending the parties for reconciliation as once such an exercise had been done and the respondent - wife did not show any inclination for any such reconciliation.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is a matrimonial matter, the Court below ought to have taken note of the request made by the petitioner who has got genuine interest to settle the matrimonial dispute.

4.

Though the contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner can be appreciated, but at the same time, the observations made by the learned Judge make it clear that the doors of reconciliation are not closed. Learned Judge has observed that once the evidence is completed, if there was chance of reconciliation, the matter will be examined for referring the same for reconciliation. As the case is posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, in my considered view, the petitioner has to cross-examine P.W. 1 and after the evidence is closed, he is at liberty to revive the request made for referring the matter for reconciliation. At that stage, the Court below snail take note of such a request, keeping in mind the need for facilitating the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement.

5.

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.