IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.18121 OF 2018 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI MUNALSANTRA, SON OF SRI S.P.SANTRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.215, MBR STEEPLE, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560068.
(BY MR.ANANTHA KUMAR.C, ADV.) AND:
SMT.SONAMDUTTA, WIFE OF SRI MUNALSANTRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT VIJETHA APARTMENTS, ITPL MAIN ROAD, OPP. COSMOS, BROOKEFIELDS, KUNDALAHALLI – 560037.
ALSO AT NOVO NORDISK INDIA, PLOT NO.32, 47-50, ROAD NUMBER 5, EPIP AREA, VIJAYANAGAR, KIADB EXPORT PROMOTIONS INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE – 560066.
(VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2019 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT) - - -
…PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 19.04.2018, PASSED BY THE III ADDL FAMILY JUDGE, BANGALORE, AT ANNEX-A G & WC/141/2017, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Anantha Kumar C., learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent though served. Record perused.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Family Court by which the application filed by the petitioner to grant interim custody of the child on all weekends to the petitioner, has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court grossly erred in entertaining a letter which was written by the respondent to the Court and on that basis grossly erred in deciding the application filed by the petitioner.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:
“The respondent has appeared in this case but she has not contested this case. She has sent a letter to this court by stating that she has left her job and relocated to Malda, West Bengal along with the child and it will be tedious and painful to her to come to Bengaluru to attend the court. She has further stated that the child was admitted to the school at Malda. She has produced copy of the relieving letter issued by her employer at Bengaluru and admission receipts of the child Archisha to show that the child was admitted to Kidzee School at Malda by paying the school fee.”
5. From perusal of the aforesaid relevant extract of the order as well as remaining portion of the order, it is evident that the Family Court has treated the contents of the letter to be conspicuous truth and has proceeded to deal with the application filed by the petitioner on merits on the basis of the letter written by the respondent. The Court is supposed to decide an issue pending before it on the basis of pleadings of the parties and on the basis of submissions made before it and not on the basis of a communication sent by a party to it. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and the Family Court is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV