O R D E R

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

20.02.2021, passed on I.A.No.7 in M.C.No.4260/2014 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

Respondent filed a divorce petition under Section

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.147/2003 before the Family Court, Mysuru. The said case was transferred to the Family Court at Bengaluru which is re-numbered as M.C.No.1195/2005. After full- fledged trial, the said petition came to be dismissed by the Family Court, Bengaluru vide order dated 12.01.2011. The respondent aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal in MFA No.1923/2011 which came to be dismissed on 21.02.2014. The respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.128/2014 before the Family Court, Mysuru. The said petition was transferred to the Family Court, Bengaluru which is re-numbered as M.C.No.4260/2014. In the said petition, the petitioner filed an application for rejection of petition on the ground that the respondent was required to seek all the reliefs in the petition filed by him in M.C.No.1195/2004 contending that the petition is barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and further the respondent has not disclosed the cause of action in the petition. Hence prayed to reject the petition. The respondent filed objections for the said application. The Family Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said ground was available to the respondent in the earlier round of litigation, respondent has not raised the plea of adultery. Hence respondent is not entitled to file a second petition. She submits that the petition filed by the respondent is barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. She further submits that the respondent has not disclosed the cause of action in the petition. Hence she submits that on this ground the petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable. In order to buttress her argument, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY VS SYED JALAL reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174. Hence she submits that the Family Court committed an error in passing the impugned order. The Family Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence she submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is arbitrary, erroneous and same is liable to be dismissed. Hence on these grounds she prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has shown the cause of action in para-20 of the petition and he also submits that cause of action is continuous. Hence the second petition filed by the respondent is maintainable. He further submits that Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not applicable to the present case on hand. He submits that the petitioner has filed this application only with an intention to harass the respondent and he further submits that the earlier petition was filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and the present petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The cause of action in both the petitions are different. He submits that the Family Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence on these grounds he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is necessary to examine as to whether the objections to the maintainability of the petition requires preliminary hearing under Order VII Rule 11(a)&(d) of CPC. It is true that grounds of desertion and cruelty were over again urged as independent grounds for dissolution of marriage in the subseque