Remanded

Krishnan Ratnakaran Nambiar v. Satya Krishnan Nee Reddy

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023RP/308/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition, filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, challenged an order in W.P. No.22973/2022. The High Court modified an earlier order to quash only the precondition linking maintenance payment to visitation rights, leaving other conditions intact, and directed the lower court to address non-compliance regarding maintenance.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04-11-2019 is quashed only insofar as it made maintenance payment a precondition for visitation. The petition is disposed with modified instructions.

Krishnan Ratnakaran Nambiar Vs Satya… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41945 RP No. 308 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 308 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KRISHNAN RATNAKARAN NAMBIAR, SON OF DR. M. RATNAKARAN NAMBIAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 701, PLANET SKS, KADRI HILLS, MANGALORE - 575 004.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SATYA KRISHNAN NEE REDDY, WIFE OF KRISHNAN RATNAKARAN NAMBIAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, LAST KNOWN TO RESIDE AT THE BLUE MOUNTAINS SCHOOL, DILKUSH MAHAL, OOTACAMUND - 643 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.N. NEHRU, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO A) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/04/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.22973/2022 (GM-FC) ANNEXURE-A.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:41945 RP No. 308 of 2023

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Court in terms of an order dated 13.04.2023 disposed the subject writ petition. The petitioner owing to certain error that would become an error apparent on the face of the record has preferred the subject review petition.

¶19

Heard Sri. Arun Govindaraj, learned counsel

¶20

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.N. Nehru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶21

This Court while disposing the petition has passed

¶22

the following order:

¶23

" O R D E R

¶24

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶25

(ii) The order dated 04-11-2019 passed on I.A.No.VI by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru in G & W.C. No.4 of 2019 is quashed.

¶26

(iii) Since 3 years have passed by, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application, if he so desires, before the concerned Court seeking visitation/interim custody of children.

¶27

(iv) In the event an application is filed, the concerned Court shall hear the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:41945 RP No. 308 of 2023

¶30

(v) Before the application so filed by the petitioner is taken up for consideration, the petitioner shall clear dues of maintenance if any, apart from what is paid during the pendency of the present proceedings.

¶31

Ordered accordingly."

¶32

While so doing, the Court has quashed the order passed on 04.11.2019 in G & WC No.4/2019 in its entirety. The observations made in the course of the proceedings qua the interlocutory orders passed at intermediate intervals would clearly indicate that the quashment of the entire order dated 04.11.2019 is an error apparent on the face of the record, as that was not called in question by the respondent - wife. Since it was not challenged by the respondent -wife, the clause (ii) of the order would read as follows:

¶33

(ii) The order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru in G & W.C.No.4/2019 stands quashed insofar as it makes payment of maintenance a pre condition for grant of visitation rights.

¶34

Rest of the order and conditions therein remain intact.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:41945 RP No. 308 of 2023

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶38

submits that the direction for visitation is not complied with by the respondent - wife.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - wife submits that the direction is not complied, as not a rupee of maintenance is paid to the wife for the last four years.

¶40

In the light of the submission and contra submission, the concerned Court shall pass appropriate orders, forthwith with regard to the submissions so made qua the maintenance.

¶41

With the aforesaid said modification, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK

Krishnan Ratnakaran Nambiar v. Satya Krishnan Nee Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan Ratnakaran Nambiar v. Satya Krishnan Nee Reddy

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

The Authorised Officer Vs M/S Aishwarya Heights Infra Private Limited

Smt Ranjitha @ Yamuna Vs Sri Rajesh

M/S Saravana Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Maharastra

Gagan Baderiya Vs Union of India

Sri. Mohammed Ethnasham Ui Haq Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.C.T. Ponnappa Vs State of Karnataka