B R Srinivas vs K M Vinaya on 2 November, 2010

0
44
Karnataka High Court
B R Srinivas vs K M Vinaya on 2 November, 2010
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2*" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ¥~I.N. NAG»AMO_HAN.i}A'S~:  .4"  

WRIT PETITION Nos. 3e766~--6S;20i0{GM«D1%Ci"R  

BETWEEN :

BRSRINIVAS

S/O B.K.RAI\/IANUJAM

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS _ V
RIAT No.14"/, AKKIPET MAIN"' ~ 

ROAD,BANGAL§)RS_§'560iO53.  A A

(By Sm: MA;N'.'PRA'I3HAii¢£'AN'L_ADV':§'""' 

AND 1

_,E,K.M.vL_N'AY.A 
 w/0 E.R.s,1z.1N'1\./As  ---------- 
{AGED ABOUT, 33. YEARS

R[A'?'D1'42.v:'1«s.?AF1;;O()*R, 15"' MAIN,
3"? S'T_:'xGE;4¢}."'__ BLOCK,
BAS A_VESHWA_RANAGAR

A ~BANG'}'-.L()RE'4%-- 560 079.

4:: *   MCV.v.RAMANA, ADV.)

5'\.

./V

.. . PETITIONER

 RESPONDENT

THESE WRIT RETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER;

ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
WITH A PRAYER TO QUASE TEE ORDERS PASSED’ ~ ..
LEARNED IIIRD ADDITIONAL FAMILY COtIRTf_ JUDGE A.
BANGALORE CITY IN G & WC No.1o6/04 VIDE _!«’..NNEXURE.~« _ ” ”

C AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COIVNNO .

PRELIMINARY HEARING :3′ sGROUP7.THIS FJAY,.___THl_E3
COURT RASSEDTHE FOLL{)WING’;~…_”=–_ A ‘–

-nn»<0–n–:"R»"'"'*"'*""""""""***'**,.l)E!.'R"" – it I
in these writ petitions the :petiti_onet*.hétS_'prayed for a writ in

the nature of certiorari to qIt:t:;–h_ fL*heVtj4.09.2()10 ~

Annexure the deIté;d– I5;()§';20iU_¥"Annexure H and the order
dated i5.09.V"2o1'0,–'AtIne:h:t{etI_L'irI.,:OV..and WC No. 106/2004 passed

by III Addit'i0I1£1'1iFéllfifiywC.0tlAI't:J[E'i};g6, Bangaiore City.

2.,._%.PetitionerV’fi1ed G and WC No. 106/2004 against the

A’responde_nt fott.cu.Stody of the minor child Vathan under Section 25

of the. Wards Act (for Short ‘the Act’). At the time of

cr’oss~exei’mirIRtio’rI”‘of R.W.3, the learned counsel. for the petitioner

‘ .,sOm.e4_queStiOnS relating to the health problem of the minor child.

r—«-

f”I~»/

i

At that time learned counsel for the respondent objected fo.r70..th’e._

questions on the ground that there is no pleading relatin’g<to'_~

health of the minor child. The Family Court, upheld. 0 '

raised by learned counsel for the res:p_onde.nt,fjv d-isal.lo'we'deT'vthe

questions under the impugned orde-zf__dated.V_0«1.09.20'it}as per 0

Annexure C.

3. Subsequent to the filed an
application under of the
petition by of The Family Court
under -0 15.09.2010 dismissed the

application foroaniendmentilonlihlthei0 ground that it is highly belated.

_ The appiiclation flied–hp the petitioner under Order 1 1 Rule 3.4 CPC

Akfor avdirection. toxthe respondent to produce the original documents

also. 0c’a_;jnex”to_j».be;;’dismissed under the impugned order dated

_t5.09.20l0″as. Annexure J”. Hence, these writ petitions.

4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the ent-ir_ei~.t_

writ papers. _

5. Petitioner is the husband of respondent and

minor child by name Vathan. Since differgencesarose b.etytteen stile’

petitioner and respondent, they got separated*__and ll

remained with the respondent. Therefo1~.3:”ihe pevtitigyfiercf’i_led’Cl”and
WC No. 106/2004 for custody ofthe .rni’1i()r* tfhi.ld”under sectiori 25 of
the Act. It is also seen from the record’tha’t:on’_.cei’tai.nl interim orders

the matter reached th.is’Co’_urt and while those matters, this

Court directed the Falniliciiy.Court’-.to’dispose the entire matter within a
time frame of two months.

in impugned order at Annexure C the Family Court

. upheld lthe «objeetion:i;’1’aised by learned counsel for the respondent to

certain ti{i1est;i.loi1sv”put to R.W.l on the ground that there is no

‘I’he'”questions put by learned counsel for the petitioner to

was in relation to the health condition of the minor child.

;_j\

J

Further the heal.th condition of the minor child are all subsequent.

developments during the pendency of the petition before ~

Court. In the matter of adjudicating the custody of the mi-nor V’

is necessary for the Family Court to decide »the._heal,thlcorrdition of

the child. In the circumstances the questions re’lating’eato the hlealth

condition of the child and that too when the.ylapre”subseqpu”ent ‘e’\Jent:’:i.,

the objection raised by the learned cou-riselphl’or the._respondeht”to”‘the
questions put to R.W.l are unsustaina.b.le’;vT[‘h’erefore “t’lie_pimpugned
order sustaining the objections lltaipsed lily: learneldi counsel for the

respondent to the questions put_to_ r:}qu–i’res jVbel*’quashed.

7. The impu’gnedA3′.orderknat Annexure H is rejecting the

application for_ the petitioner. The proposed

amendment is to ineorporlatelfacts relating to health condition of the

thegtreatment given to the minor child, and the

negligence towards minor child. These events had

taken pl.ace,.__duriiri’gi the pendency of the petition before the Family

H ‘Co’urt, It is settled position of law that it is obligatory on the part of

&N\

the Court to consider the subsequent events even without therevbeinig.

pleadings when they are brought in evidence. “fhere;t’o’re-,f_~

petitioner is entitled to bring to the notice of th€.v’C0t:I’:I”I, Vail: the

subsequent events in the evidence without there-.beivng–aiany.’p*leadi’ng. is .l

Therefore the impugned order at.»iVAnnexu’re_ H di;~.rni.s;Vsin_g the V

application filed by the petitioner for aihevndment of the. petition is
sustained not for the reasons sta_te’d_inl__the_ irnpugnédi order but for the
reasons stated in this order, _

8. The irnpu’-géed ~ Anneiture J is rejecting the
applicationvfiled -pet’itione’r”fo_r –a direction to the respondent to

produce medical 1’tecords.””En ..th’e–.tpiap.p1ication filed under Order 11

Rule E.4_{CI’C the “petitioner: has not specified the detaits of the

“V.docu’mentsrequired’ to be produced. On the other hand learned

c0uitse’i.forthe’_’re__spor1’dent contends that the respondent had onty the

xerox copies or” certain medicat records and not the original

documents. The xerox copies which were in the custody of the

..rjcspondeAnt were already produced. In the circumstances the

«:\,:’z\

J

impugned order passed by the Family Court rejecting the applic.atiofi~–._

filed under Order 1 1. Rule 14 CPC is in accordance with ~

9. For the reasons stated above, the i -3
ORDERm V

l. Writ petitions are partly ‘

11. The impugned at dated’ o4.o9.2010
upholdingthe O13:j.BG£i.Oi1.S jvylearned counsel
for examination of

~.

I11. Learned~.cio_unsel fpetitioner is entitled to cross
ie::tanuneV’R_.V’\i.’l events and particularly

V ain relaiiioenviito the health condition of minor child, the

‘treatment and negligence on the part of respondent
” ‘ iowaiéds the minor child.

l’t{. The writ petitions insofar they relate to the

impugned order at Annexure H and J are hereby

rejected.

«’\

fie

V. The Family Court to proceed with the matLere’._:i’n

accordance with law and to dispose the enti_r;e”’cese..;is5 ;_ é

expeditiously as possible, on day-to-day.

time frame of two months. Or:€3er6F3i€1A,C7F:oui”d,ifn$137–¢ 4′

LRS/031 12010.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *