Disposed

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani v. Mrs. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024WP/6599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought direction to the Family Court to appoint an advocate commissioner or record evidence via video conference in a maintenance case transferred from Bombay, citing travel hardship. The court declined those reliefs, noting remedies were not exhausted below, but directed continuous dates so cross-examination concludes within eight sittings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani Vs Mrs. Arzoo Samarth… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10105 WP No. 6599 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6599 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SAMARTH VIMALJAGNANI S/O VIMALJAGNANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC SERVICE RESIDING AT, FLAT NO.302, BALAJI TOWERS, JALSUKHLAL MEHTA ROAD, SANTACRUZ (WEST), MUMBAI-400054

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NEHAL THIMMAIAH M.P.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MRS. ARZOO SAMARTH JAGNANI @ ARZOORAMAGOPALJAJODIA W/O SAMARTH JAGNANI AGE 35 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, RESIDING AT JAJODIA VILLA, MEGHAMALHAR COMPLEX, NEAR ROYAL CHALLENGE RESTAURANT OFF GEN A K. VAIDYA MARG, GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI-400063

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE 2ND ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT TO APPOINT A ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER FOR RECORDING THE EVIDENCE IN MC 6470 OF 2022 AND ETC.,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:10105 WP No. 6599 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

¶19

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶20

prayer:

¶21

i) Directing the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court to appoint a Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence in M.C.No.6470/2022 or

¶22

ii) Alternatively for direction to then II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court to record evidence in M.C.no.6470/2022 through video conference.

¶23

iii) Pass such order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶25

initially the cases were filed before the courts at Bombay, thereafter at the request of wife, all are transferred to the courts at Bangalore as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 02.09.2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the order of transfer has directed the court below to conclude the proceedings at an early date. It is further submitted that there after this court in an earlier round of

¶26

litigation has directed the court below to conclude the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10105 WP No. 6599 of 2024

¶28

proceedings within six months. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is co-operating with the trial and he is coming all the way from Bombay and the respondents are conveniently taking dates and they are not concluding the cross-examination. The petitioner is a working person and this is causing lot of inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner.

¶29

In reply to the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife submits that there are no latches on her part. In fact, the petitioner had filed statement of assets and liabilities in the year 2024 after the orders passed by this Court. The Petitioner is not cooperating with the cross-examination and they are ready to conclude the cross-examination as early as possible.

¶30

Petitioner without moving an application before

¶31

the court below has come before this court seeking several prayers. Petitioner without even exhausting the remedies

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:10105 WP No. 6599 of 2024

¶34

available before the court below has come up before this court.

¶35

The Petitioner seeks the relief from this court to conduct the cross-examination of the commissioner through video conference and appoint an advocate for recording the evidence. This court is not inclined to grant relief as sought for by the petitioner. However, considering the inconvenience that is being faced by the petitioner who has to travel all the way from Bombay on each date of hearing, this court deems it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition as follows.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The court below shall give the dates for the cross-examination continuously as required by learned counsel for wife for * eight days & in the next eight sittings, the respondents shall conclude the cross-examination.*

¶38

Corrected and deleted vide Court order dated 01.04.2024.

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:10105 WP No. 6599 of 2024

¶40

¶41

ii) Petitioner is at liberty to give the convenient dates in this month.

¶42

iii) Accordingly Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani v. Mrs. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani v. Mrs. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vanathy Rajkumar Vs Mr. K Harish Kumar

Dr. Edmond Clint Fernandes Vs Mrs. Delma Lubna Coelho

Smt Rashmi M Vs Sri Pawan Kumar T S

Hussain Sab Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri Halleppa

Kiran Kumar Bandari Vs Dr. Reena Sinha

Kartheek Maladi Vs Mrs Deepa K S