IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 7802 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT.G.S PRABHAVATHI W/O SRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A GADIJOGIHUNDI VILLAE, BANNUR HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK.

…PETITIONER Digitally signed (BY SRI. GOVARDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH SRI. VINUTHAN MURTHY B. V., ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

SRI. NAGRAJ S/O KARAGASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A ACHARAYYANAHUNDI VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 01.03.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPUR, AT MYSORE IN I.A.NO.9 AND IA.NO.10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C.NO.03/2016 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND J AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR UNDER THE CAPTION "PART HEARD", THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Govardhan who represents Sri.Vinuthan Murthy B.V., learned counsel on record for petitioner as well as Sri.C.Mohan who represents Sri.P.Nataraju, learned counsel on record for respondent.

2. Though this writ petition is filed seeking the Court to set aside the orders that were rendered on I.A.No.IX and X in M.C. No.3/2016, which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, T. Narasipura, learned counsel for petitioner on this day submits that he restricts his submission only on I.A. No.IX and petitioner seeks no relief from this Court so far as I.A. No.X is concerned.

3. I.A.No.IX is filed by petitioner under Order 6 Rule

17 CPC seeking permission of the Court for amendment of her pleadings.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is the wife of respondent. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking the Court to declare her marriage with respondent to be null and void. Learned counsel states that respondent is impotent towards the petitioner and he has no sexual desire towards the petitioner. The medical term used for such infirmity is "quoad- hanc". Such a specific plea was not taken by the petitioner in her pleadings and therefore, she moved an application for amendment of pleadings. But the trial Court rejected her request and therefore, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court the contents of the pleadings of petitioner. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the writ petition and thereby to set aside the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.IX.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent states that respondent, to establish that he is not suffering from any infirmity whatsoever, subjected himself to potency test voluntarily. Thereafter, again under the directions of the Court he subjected himself for the potency test. Reports reveal that respondent does not suffer with any such impotency. The case was filed in the year 2016 by the petitioner. Petitioner on one ground or the other is dragging on the matter. When the case was posted for arguments, petitioner filed this interlocutory application only to drag on the proceedings and thus the trial

ORDER

Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36