Dismissed

Dr Mrs Shilpa Ranjan Mulki v. Dr Dheeraj Kumar

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/11591/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by a wife residing in Kenya seeking to quash the Family Court's order rejecting her request for video conferencing in pending matrimonial and custody proceedings. The Court held that video conferencing is not suitable for such sensitive matters and found insufficient evidence of life threat to warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the Writ Petitions seeking interference with the lower court orders were dismissed.

Dr Mrs Shilpa Ranjan Mulki Vs Dr Dheeraj… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 11591 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11661 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶9

IN W.P.NO.11591/2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

DR. MRS. SHILPA RANJAN MULKI, W/O DR. DHEERAJ KUMAR VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, C/O POST BOX NO.9096000200, NAIROBI, KENYA.

¶12

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

DR. DHEERAJ KUMAR VISHWANATHA, S/O LATE DR. H.K.VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT 'SUNDARI', B.R.KARKERA ROAD, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER ON

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶20

¶21

I.A.NO.V DATED 04.01.2023 AND ALSO THE ORDER DTD 14.02.2023 M.C.NO.285/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU AT ANNEXURE-F AND G RESPECTIVELY BY SETTING THEM ASIDE AND ETC.

¶22

IN W.P.NO.11661/2023

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

DR. MRS. SHILPA RANJAN MULKI, W/O DR. DHEERAJ KUMAR VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, C/O POST BOX NO.9096000200, NAIROBI, KENYA.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

DR. DHEERAJ KUMAR VISHWANATHA, S/O LATE DR. H.K.VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT 'SUNDARI', B.R.KARKERA ROAD, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS., ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 IN G AND WC.NO.7/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU AT ANNEXURE-G RESPECTIVELY BY SETTING IT ASIDE AND ETC.

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶33

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The prayer sought in W.P.No.11591/2023 is as follows:

¶36

"a) Interfere with the Order on I.A.No.V dated: 04/01/2023 and also the Order dated: 14/02/2023 M.C.No.285/2021 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru at Annexure-F & G respectively by setting them aside.

¶37

b) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case".

¶38

The prayer sought in W.P.No.11661/2023 is as follows:

¶39

"a) Interfere with the Order dated: 14/02/2023 in G & W.C.No.7/2021 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru at Annexure-G respectively by setting it aside.

¶40

b) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case".

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶42

The petitioner before this Court is the wife. Both petitioner and respondent were married on 23.02.2011 at Mangaluru according to the customs and rites prevailing in their community. They are blessed with a daughter, who was born on 08.04.2015. Both petitioner and respondent are doctors by profession. The parents of the petitioner are residing in Kenya.

¶43

It is the case of the respondent/husband that in the month of November 2020, the wife requested to visit her parents and thereafter she has not come back to India. The petitioner/wife has filed a petition for divorce and also a petition for appointment of guardian which are pending consideration before the Kenyan Court. The respondent/husband has filed M.C.No.285/2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He has also filed G & WC.No.7/2021 seeking custody of the child and the same is pending consideration. Now the petitioner/wife is before this Court questioning the order passed by the Court below whereby the Court had dismissed I.A. filed by the wife

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶45

seeking a direction that she can adduce her evidence through video conferencing.

¶46

The Court below considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam¹ and also Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh² . The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anjani Brahmawar Chauhan v. Navin Chauhan³ has held that it is not proper to use video conferencing in matrimonial disputes. Further the Court below has also considered the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2020 4 CivCC 609 . But the learned Judge has observed that in light of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan v. Navin Chauhan⁴ this judgment of the Division Bench cannot be considered. The Court below has further observed that it is the allegation of the petitioner/wife that the respondent/husband is having a illicit relationship with

¶47

1 (2017) 4 SCC 150

¶48

2 (2018) 1 SCC 62

¶49

3 (2021) SCC OnLine 38

¶50

4 SCC Online SC 2020

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶52

another lady working in a hospital where he is working as a doctor and there the parallel proceedings for the custody of the daughter are also pending consideration where all the sensitive issues are allowed to be recorded through Video conferencing, then the very purpose of maintaining secrecy and protecting the interest of the parties will be defeated. Hence, following the law laid down in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, (2018),⁵ stated supra, the Court below has dismissed the petition by rejecting the request of the petitioner.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petition that is filed before this Court it is categorically stated that the wife has threat, as the husband has threatened to wipe her and her whole family. Further the wife is living in Kenya along with her daughter. It would be very difficult for her to come down to India. Further it is submitted that in the interest of the parties, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition. It is

¶54

5 1 SCC 1 : (2018) 1 SCC (Civ) 1

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶56

further stated that coming to India and participating in these proceedings would be difficult to petitioner/wife and she is a doctor in Kenya and also has to take care of the interest of the minor daughter.

¶57

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶58

respondent/husband submits that the wife had left India in the year 2020 along with the minor child and has not returned back to India and from there on the respondent/husband had never had an opportunity to meet his daughter. He has filed the petitions for restitution of conjugal rights and for custody of the minor child. If the request is accepted, she would never come to India and the father would never have an opportunity to meet the minor child. He submits that the Court below had rightly relied on the judgment of the Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, (2018),⁶ stated Supra and considering the matrimonial matters and sensitive issues that are involved in the case had rightly rejected the petition.

¶59

6 1 SCC 1 : (2018) 1 SCC (Civ) 1

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶61

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The undisputed facts are that the husband has filed the petitions seeking restitution of conjugal rights and custody of the minor child. The wife has initiated proceedings for divorce and also for guardianship of the daughter and they are pending consideration. The wife left India in the year 2020 and thereafter she has not come back to India. Now, it is stated that if she comes to India there is threat to her life, except making a statement by way of an affidavit, no material is placed before this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, (2018),⁷ supra has observed that the discrepancies in the matrimonial disputes and how it is not in the interest of the parties to conduct the proceedings through Video conferencing. In the particular light of the fact that from the year 2020 the wife is staying in Kenya along with the daughter and father has no opportunity to meet the child. Further the

¶62

7 1 SCC 1 : (2018) 1 SCC (Civ) 1

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:11094 WP No. 11591 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11661 of 2023

¶64

application for the child's custody is pending before the Court below. Under these factors, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below. The Court below had rightly rejected the application of the petitioner/wife. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶65

However, it is made clear that if sufficient material is placed before the Court showing that there is threat to the life of the wife, she can move an appropriate application. The Court below shall consider the same in the interest of the justice.

¶66

Sd/Judge

¶67

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Dr Mrs Shilpa Ranjan Mulki v. Dr Dheeraj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mrs Shilpa Ranjan Mulki v. Dr Dheeraj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Vedavathi

Venkob Rao Vs Sri. Girish Swamy

Mrs. Akshatha G. Nayak Vs Mr. Shamanth. S. Suvarna

Mohammed Khasim Vs P U Devadas

Smt. Chandana Muniswamaiah Rameshkumar Vs Ranjith Venkatarajanahalli Srinivasaiah

Smt Preethi N Vs Mr Ajay S N