IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.21463 OF 2017 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
AASTHA VERMA, AGED 35 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF COL.R.K.VERMA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B4-334, KENDRIYA VIHAR, VENKATALA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560064.
(BY MR.AZHAR MEER, ADV.) AND:
RASKSHIT GAUR, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF LT.COL.S.C.GAUR, PRESENTLY RESIDIUNG AT NO.27084, DLF GARDEN CITY, THAZHAMBUR OMR, SEMMANCHERI, CHENNAI – 600 119 AND ALSO AT NO.110, AANCHAL APARTMENTS, SOUTH CIVIL LINES, JABALPUR – 482004.
(BY MR.R.KIRAN, ADV.) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEX-H HERETO DATED 28.4.2017 OF THE HON’BLE III ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING I.A.II IN G & W.C.NO.257/2015 ON ITS FILE; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Azhar Meer, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.R.Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Family Court by which application filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody of her children has been rejected by the Family Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The impugned order reads as under:
“I.A.No.2 application filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
Exparte order passed by this Court dated 28.10.2015 is hereby set aside. Petitioner is granted visitation right to visit the children on 1st and 4th Sunday at Chennai at any Mall or park near to the house of the respondent from morning 10.30 a.m. to afternoon 2.30 p.m.
The respondent shall hand over the custody of the children to the petitioner on the above dates to exercise the visitation rights and he should not make any nuisance during the course of visitation.”
5. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL Vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process. (See (2015) 12 SCC 291, UNION OF INDIA VS. RAVINDER KUMAR, (2012) 5 SCC 480, UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. TALWINDER SINGH, (2010) 13 SCC 336, SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. MODERN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS and (2010) 9 SCC 486, MAYA DEVI VS. RAJ KUMARI BATRA AND OTHERS).
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the order passed by the Family Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is rather shocking and surprising that a judicial officer of the rank of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, would decide an application seeking custody of the children without assigning any reasons. The impugned order is bereft of reasons and suffers from non-application of mind. Therefore, the same is quashed. The Family Court is therefore directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner on or before 27.04.2019 by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV