Allowed

B.Gunasekaran v. L.Priya

Madras HC22 Jan 2015CRP/3357/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227, the High Court allowed the challenge against an order rejecting an application for a subpoena to IBM. Finding that a printout from IBM's website provided prima facie evidence of the respondent's employment, the High Court held the lower court wrong to reject the request and ordered the issuance of a subpoena to verify employment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the Court below is directed to issue a subpoena to I.B.M. for checking the respondent's employment status.

B.Gunasekaran Vs L.Priya — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 22.1.2015

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.3357 of 2013

¶6

Mr.B.Gunasekaran, rep.by his Power of Attorney Holder Mrs.B.Rani

¶7

...Petitioner Vs

¶8

L.Priya ...Respondent

¶9

PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the final and decretal orders dated 27.12.2012 made in M.P.No.752 of 2012 in M.C.No.208 of 2011 on the file of the Second Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Moorthi For Respondent : Mr.H.Rajasekar

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner has come up with the above revision petition challenging

¶13

the dismissal of an application for the issue of a supina to the employer.

¶14

Heard Mr.N.Moorthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.H. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

The respondent filed a petition in M.C.No.208 of 2011 on the file of the Second Additional Family Court, Chennai for maintenance against the petitioner. The petitioner took a plea that the respondent was well employed. But, the respondent denied the same. Therefore, the petitioner took out an

(2)

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J

application in M.P.No.752 of 2012 for issuing supina to I.B.M., where the respondent is allegedly employed. This application was rejected by the Court below by an order dated 27.12.2012. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

The petitioner has not merely thrown an allegation that the respondent is employed in I.B.M. The petitioner has produced some semblance of a document in the form of a print out from the web page of I.B.M. where the photograph of the respondent with some particulars are shown. Therefore, the best way of establishing whether the respondent is employed or not, is to issue supina. A bare denial on the part of the respondent is not sufficient for the Court to determine whether she is employed or not. Therefore, the Court below was wrong in rejecting the application.

¶21

In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to issue supina to I.B.M. for checking up whether the respondent is employed there or not. No costs.

¶22

22.1.2015

¶23

Internet : Yes To The Second Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶24

CRP(PD)No.3357 of 2013

B.Gunasekaran v. L.Priya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Gunasekaran v. L.Priya

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

A.Ganesan Vs Vivekanand

R.Kavitha Vs H.T.Ramamurthy

T. Kokila Vs a. Jayanthi

K.Rathina Vs Yuga Developers

N.Mannar Vs U.Sumathi

Mrs.B.S.Deepa Vs The Regional Passport Officer