The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition, dismissed the challenge to the Family Court's rejection of an application to summon documents. The single-judge bench held that in a restitution of conjugal rights case, summoning documents to prove the respondent's income is unnecessary.
No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION No.15850 OF 2013 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI L. KISHORE KUMAR S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.204/2 (7), 6TH BLOCK, SUBASHCHANDRA ROAD, KULAI, MANGALORE-575 019.
NOW AT:
NO.A-104, YASH AVENUE, PLOT-51-C, SECTOR-20, KHARGAR, NAVI MUMBAI-410210.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI A M VIJAY, ADV.,)
AND
SMT SUMANA KISHORE W/O KISHORE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF LFAT NO.AH-1/76, KENDRIYA VIDHAR (1) APARTMENTS, KHARGHAR, NAVI MUMBAI-410210 MAHARASHTRA.
2
OFFICE ADDRESS:
LECTURER, MGM DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, KAMOTHE, SECTOR-18, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-410 210.
… RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/O 16 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC DT.17.10.2012 BY THE LEARNED 4TH ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, IN M.C.NO.1504/2005 VIDE ANNXA.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the order dated 16.10.2012 in MC No.1504/2005 on the file of the Additional Judge, XIV Additional Family Court, Bangalore, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for summoning of certain documents has been rejected.
Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application for summoning of certain document in order
3
to establish the income of the respondent. Since the main petition is for restitution of conjugal rights, it is unnecessary to summon the document in question. I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
GH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for summoning documents to establish the respondent's income is necessary in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri L. Kishore Kumar S/o Late Balakrisha
Smt Sumana Kishore W/o Kishore Kumar
S. Abdul Nazeer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
