IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.41774/2016(GM-FC) BETWEEN SMT. SWETHA SREENIVASAN W/O KRISHNA RAMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A. NO.C 002 ABODH VALMARK GOVINDPURA MAIN ROAD VEERANAPALYA BANGALORE – 560 045.
(By Sri KIRAN S. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE) AND SRI KRISHNA RAMALINGAM S/O Dr. C.R. RAMALINGAM AND Dr. RAJALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.A 104 GALAXY ORCHID ENCLAVE 121/2 SEEGEHALLI BANGALORE – 560 067 (By Sri P N RAMESH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2016 IN M.C.NO.2565/2014 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING in ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Court below in M.C. No.2565/2014.
2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She has instituted the proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court below. While seeking dissolution, the petitioner has also sought for permanent alimony in the said proceedings. When the matter was at the stage of examination of the witness, on 08.06.2016, the petitioner is stated to have filed certain documents which are sought to be relied on by the petitioner. Since the Court below has not taken the same on record, the petitioner is assailing the said order dated 08.06.2016.
3. Insofar as of the documents to be relied on before the Court below, mere production would not be a proof of such documents. Therefore, if the documents were sought to be brought on record before they were marked in evidence, proper procedure is required to be followed. From the description contained in the order dated 08.06.2016, it does not indicate that the documents have been brought on record by filing an appropriate application in accordance with law. Therefore, in that circumstance, at this juncture, I do no see any reason to interfere with the order dated 08.06.2017. However, if the petitioner desires to bring on record any documents and in that direction if the order dated 08.06.2016 affects the rights of the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Court below both with regard to recall of the order dated 08.06.2016 and also seeking leave of the Court below, at the out set, to bring any additional documents on record. If such applications are filed, the Court below to take note of the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner herein. Contentions in that regard are left open.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE mv