Karnataka High Court
Manohar Bapatla vs Sujata Bapatla on 1 June, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 201514 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 201514 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MANOHAR BAPATLA S/O BVD RAMARAO,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC : SR. CHARGEMAN,
CMM DEPT. CO. & CCD ZONE,
STEEL PLANT, R/O QUARTERS NO.432/D,
SECTOR-6, UKKU NAGARAM,
VISHAKAPATNAM -32 (AP).
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SUJATA BAPATLA
W/O MANOHAR BAPATLA,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
Digitally signed OCC : EMPLOYEE IN SRIRAM
by B NAGAVENI
CITY CAMP FINANCE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O C/O M.VENUGOPALRAO,
KARNATAKA ARAGINAMARA CAMP,
PO: RH CAMP NO.1,
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR - 584101.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 17.08.2022 IN MC NO.06/2020 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SINDHANUR, AND
-2-
WP No. 201514 of 2023
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent is dispensed with.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs a. "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated: 17-08-2022 in M.C.No.06/2020 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Sindhanur, and consequently allow the application filed by the petitioner vide Annexure- G, in the interest of justice and equity. b. PASS such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that while seeking for maintenance, the respondent has not complied with the requirements of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha1, inasmuch as, the enclosures required to be submitted have not 1 2021(2) SCC 324 -3- WP No. 201514 of 2023 been submitted and what has been submitted is not complete. It is in that background that the petitioner has filed application under Order VI Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for direction to the respondent to furnish the left out particulars which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court.
4. Whenever any matter relating to maintenance is to be adjudicated by any Court, the said Court would be bound by the directions which have been issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case. In the event of any of the parties not complying with the said requirements, adverse inference would have to be drawn by the Court and if any averments made are not supported by relevant documents, those cannot be considered by such Court. Thus, merely because, the respondent did not produce certain documents, there is no requirement for a direction to be issued. The production or otherwise being left to -4- WP No. 201514 of 2023 the discretion of the party, non-compliance thereof would result in adverse inference being drawn.
5. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court does not require any interference for the reasons aforestated other than that stated by the Trial Court.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to consider the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case as also the observations made hereinabove.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24