IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.56314-56316 OF 2018 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
MR. SAVIKIRAN S.M., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SRI SANJEEVA RAO, R/AT NO.17-A, I FLOOR, PATTAMMAL STREET, GURUSWAMY NAGAR, MUGALIVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 125 (TN) ... PETITIONER (By SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.SRI. PRAKASH B.V., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI VENKATESH. K R/AT NO.B-1201, AMODA VALMARK APT., DODDA KAMMANAHALLI ROAD, OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 083.
2.SMT.SHASHIKALA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O SRI PRAKASH, R/AT NO.7527, 5TH FLOOR, 7TH BLOCK, WING-II, JANAPRIYA METROPLOIC APARTMENT, MOTINAGAR, HYDERABAD TELANGANA, PIN-500 045. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 ON I.A. NOs.10 TO 12 BY THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN M.C.4303/2017 AS PER 'ANNEXURE-H'.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vikram Unni Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by VI Additional Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, by which, I.A.Nos.10 to 12 filed by the respondents has been allowed.
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid applications have been allowed without affording opportunity to the petitioner. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been fairly disputed by the learned counsel for respondents.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the facts of the case, the impugned order, which has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, is quashed. The Family Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner and to consider and dispose of I.A.Nos.10 to 12 by a speaking order.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv