IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.53079/2018 & 53687/2018 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI. SUJOY GHOSH S/O LATE J.L. GOSH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.107 INDUS SIGNATURE APARTMENTS APPAREDDYPALYA INDIRANAGAR, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 038.
(By Mrs. D. SHRISHAILA DHARANI, ADV.) AND:
MRS. RITIKA SHARAN WIFE OF MR. SUJOY GHOSH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NCC IVORY TOWERS OUTER RING ROAD B. NARAYANAPURA MAHADEVAPURA BANGALORE – 560 016.
(By Mr. JAYAKUMAR N.D. ADV.,) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINICPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN M.C.NO.4484/2016, WHICH ALLOWED THE APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.11 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.D.Shrishaila Dharani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Jayakumar N.D, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Family Court, by which the Family Court has directed the petitioner herein to submit the passport of his son viz., Master Sattik before the Family Court to be kept in safe custody of the Court. Petitioner has also assailed the validity of the order, by which respondent has been permitted to take the child to Singapore on Christmas vacation from 16.12.2018 to 02.01.2019 vide order passed on I.A.No.11.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that challenge to the impugned order dated 20.11.2018, insofar as it pertains challenge to I.A.No.11/2018 is concerned the same is rendered infructuous. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challenge to the impugned order insofar as it directs the petitioner to submit the passport of his son survives. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the aforesaid order on the ground that on an earlier occasion, similar application filed by the respondent was rejected by an order dated 04.01.2018 and therefore subsequently the same could not have been allowed by order dated 20.11.2018. The impugned order insofar it pertains to I.A.No.12/2018 is barred by subject to hindrance. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Family Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order.
5. I have considered the submission made on both sides. From the perusal of the order it appears that objection raised by the petitioner that the subsequent application field by the respondent seeking a direction to the petitioner to deposit the passport before the Court, has not been considered by the family court while passing the impugned order. In the fact situation of the case and in view of law laid down by supreme court in ‘STATE OF MAHARASTRA vs. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK’, AIR 1982 SC 1249, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner with a liberty to file a review if so advised.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS