Disposed

Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Sri. Manmohan Attavar

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2016WP/49153/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking withdrawal of an appeal against an order under the DV Act and requested transfer of the pending appeal to this court. The court held the writ was misconceived but instead ordered withdrawal of the appeal and transfer to this court for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal Crl. A. No. 1070/2015 ordered to be withdrawn from lower court and placed before the High Court for disposal.

Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016 BEFORE:

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.49153 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar, Wife of Manmohan Attavar (Avouched) Age 61+ years, C/o. 38/1, 30^th Cross, 3^rd Main, 7^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 082. …PETITIONER (By Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar – Petitioner [Party-inPerson] ) AND:

¶7

Sri. Manmohan Attavar, Son of Mutthappa Attavar, Age 83+ years, Residing at 38/1, 30^th Cross 3^rd Main, 7^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 0832. (By Shri S. Shekar Shetty, Advocate) *****

¶8

… RESPONDENT

¶9

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to appellate Court LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore order dated 10.8.2016, vide Annexure-M does not inspire faith that justice and equity will prevail in the Final Order. In DV case, their lies just one appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act and also praying to Criminal Appeal 1070/2015 be heard in this Hon’ble Court for finality and grant of all reliefs under DV Act as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the DV case (Crl.Appeal No.1070/2015).

¶11

This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved on 4.10.2016 and coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard the petitioner appearing in person and Shri Shekar

¶14

Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶15

The petitioner is before this court invoking the writ

¶16

jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This may indeed be misconceived. That, however, would not result in the petition being dismissed mechanically. The actual relief that the petitioner seeks is the withdrawal of the appeal, (preferred by her against an order of the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bangalore, rejecting her petition under Section 12 of the Protection of

¶17

¶18

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,) now pending before the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, to this court for disposal. Therefore, it would have been appropriate to file an application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is no impediment, however, for this court to treat this petition as an application filed under Section 407 Cr.PC. or for this Court to act under the said provision, on taking note of the petitioner’s prayer, notwithstanding Shri Shetty's vehement objection as to the matter of form.

¶19

The sum and substance of the petitioner’s grievance is that she and the respondent had a torrid physical and emotional relationship for several years, which had flowered even during the subsistence of her marriage and had assumed full blown proportions, after her divorce from her legally wedded husband. But with advancing age, the respondent had chosen to disown her. She had given up a bright and prestigious career for a life with the respondent and is now a destitute with little energy left to resume

¶20

¶21

her academic career. She claims her due from the respondent, for

¶22

having exploited the best years of her life.

¶23

The trial court, on a critical examination of the evidence,

¶24

has concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish her case for any relief whatsoever.

¶25

The appellate court had refused any interim relief in the first instance. The petitioner is seen to have approached the Sessions Court seeking a transfer of the appeal, which had been granted. On such transfer the petitioner had again sought interim reliefs, coining the prayers in the manner she knew best. The court below instead of placing the petitioner on terms and calling upon her to argue the appeal itself on merits, had chosen to hear the applications which were not maintainable and in the face of the earlier order, has now passed a predictable order. This was a waste of precious court time.

¶26

The case is not of such a complex nature as would require a long drawn out hearing.

¶27

¶28

It is also noticed that petitioner's informal style of narration

¶29

and her endeavour to make out a case on the bits and pieces of her past, which she may not have documented with the intention of initiating the proceedings which she is now pursuing, is not seen to be appreciated in the right perspective.

¶30

It is hence found necessary by this court, that in the interest of justice and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, that the appeal should be withdrawn from the court below and be heard by this court.

¶31

It is Ordered that the appeal in Crl. A. No. 1070 / 2015 on the file of the LIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore be withdrawn from the said court and placed before this court along with the lower court records for disposal.

¶32

The Registry to forthwith secure the papers from the court below. The matter is to be posted for further orders on receipt of

¶33

the same.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

KS*

Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Sri. Manmohan Attavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Sri. Manmohan Attavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr. Jayaram P.H Vs Arjuna

Sri M Lakshman Vs Sri Balaji Developers and Builders

Sri. Mirza Turabali Baig Vs Miss B.N. Anitha

Smt Shobha Vs the State of Karnataka

P R Dhananjaya Vs the State