IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.27072 OF 2019 & WRIT PETITION NO.30200 OF 2019 (GM - FC) BETWEEN:
Anita Appu, W/o V.Antony Roy, Aged about 37 years, R/at Umiya Laburnum, Flat No.202, Jeevanahalli Main Road, MEG Officers Colony, Banasawadi Road, Bangalore – 560 033.
… Petitioner (By Sri. Govindaraju L, Advocate) AND:
V.Antony Roy, S/o V.C.Antony, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.19, Lewis Road, 1st Floor, Cooke Town, Bangalore – 560 005.
… Respondent (By Sri. Vijay A.M., Advocate for C/R) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 12.04.2019 made on I.A.No.4 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.4615/2018 [Annexure – K] and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Govindaraju L, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay A. M., learned counsel for the respondent.
These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.04.2019 as well as the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 43 of the Divorce Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to permit him to exercise visitation rights in respect of minor Daughter Ms. Ivanka Raj. Thereupon, the Family Court passed an ad-interim order on 12.04.2019. The relevant extract reads as under:
“Advocate for the respondent submits that petitioner may be directed to allow the respondent to visit the child on Saturday 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and Sunday between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. The petitioner is directed to allow the respondent to visit the child between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on every Saturday and between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m on every Sunday.”
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed an application for reviewing the order dated 12.04.2019, which has been rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 22.04.2019.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is well settled in law that not only the judicial authority even the quasi judicial authority has to assign the reasons in support of the order. From perusal of the relevant extract of the order dated 12.04.2019, it is evident that the trial Court has not assigned any reasons for passing the impugned order and has accepted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘S. N. MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA’, (1990) 4 SCC 594, has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In ‘SECRETARY AND CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL V. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND OTHERS’, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.
7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the impugned order dated 12.04.2019 cannot be sustained under the law. It is accordingly, quashed and set aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to decide the application under Section 43 of the Divorce Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties by a speaking order within a period of ten days from today.
Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-