High CourtsSingle Bench

Ganesh Poojary vs Chaithra @ Poojary

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 9 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 KAR CK 0437

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 396 Of 2026 (GM-FC)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 344 words

Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha, J

1.

Heard Sri.Somanna.K.P who represents Sri.Vishwas learned counsel on record for the petitioner.

2.

In the light of the limited relief sought for, this Court is of the view that notice to respondent can be dispensed with. Therefore, notice to respondent is dispensed with.

3.

Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karkala on I.A.No.1/2025 and I.A.No.2/2025 dated 18.02.2025 in M.C.No.53/2025, the present writ petition is filed.

4.

On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the relevant material that is brought on record, it is clear that the respondent herein filed a petition seeking decree of divorce against the respondent. The respondent though entered into appearance on receipt of notice, failed to file his counter statement. Therefore, the Court took the counter statement as nil and posted the case for the evidence of respondent herein. On that the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 to reopen the case and I.A.No.2 seeking permission to file his objection. Both the applications stood dismissed through the impugned order.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter revolves upon the marital relationship between the parties and in case the petitioner's counter statement is not accepted, he would be put to irreparable hardship and loss. Learned counsel further submits that due to ill-health the petitioner could not file his counter statement within time.

6.

As the case revolves upon the marital relationship between the parties and as this Court is of the view that a fair opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner herein to project his version through the counter statement, considers desirable to give a fair opportunity to do so.

7.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The respondent shall file his counter statement/objections before the trial Court on or before 14.01.2026 and also deposit costs of ₹10,000/-to be payable to the respondent i.e., the petitioner in the MC.

In case the conditions imposed are not complied, this writ petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.