B V Mohan Babu vs Smt Bhavya on 13 October, 2015

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

B V Mohan Babu vs Smt Bhavya on 13 October, 2015

Bench: A. V. Chandrashekara

                              -1-



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. V. CHANDRASHEKARA

                  CRL.R.P.NO.938/2015

BETWEEN:

B.V.Mohan Babu,
S/o Vajrappa,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.832,
Ground Floor,
LIG, 1st and 2nd Stage
15th Cross, 'B' Sector,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru-560064                         ... Petitioner

(By Sri.L.Harish Kumar, Adv.)


AND:

Smt.Bhavya
W/o B.V.Mohan Babu,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.1054,
1st Floor, 2nd Main,
KHB Industrial Area,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru-560064.                       ... Respondent

(By Sri.V.Appi Reddy, Adv.)
                              -2-



      This Crl.R.P. is filed u/s. 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the judgment and order dated
31.08.2015 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and S.J.,
Bangalore (CCH-65) in Crl.A.No.830/2015 and also the
impugned orders dated 15.06.2015 passed by the
M.M.T.C.-II, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.459/2011.

     This Crl.R.P. is coming on for admission this day,
the Court made the following:

                        ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case is at the stage of admission. The order dated 15.6.2015 passed by the learned Judge of MMTC-II at Bengaluru under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is called in question in this petition.

2. Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Admittedly respondent has filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act"). During the pendency of the said petition, this petitioner had chosen to file an application under Section 91 CPC requesting the court to summon the Bank Manager, Corporation Bank, the Bank Manager, Karnataka Bank, Yelahanka -3- New Town, Bengaluru and the Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Town Hall Branch, Bengaluru and to produce the Bank statements of A.Bhavya-petitioner therein for complete adjudication of the matter and dispute.

3. The said application was contested by filing detailed objection. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge has dismissed the application.

4. If, according to the present petitioner, his wife has any bank account and she has not produced documents as sought for by him, nothing comes in the way of this petitioner to request the Court to draw an adverse inference as per Section 114(G) of the Evidence Act. Court cannot direct the respondent herein to produce all those documents for effective adjudication of the matter and dispute. Even otherwise, the matter is of the year 2011 and the learned Judge has opined that the case is being dragged on by this petitioner on one -4- pretext or the other. No good grounds are made out to invoke provisions of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as unfit for admission. Consequently I.A.1/15 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is also dismissed.

6. The learned Judge, MMTC-II to dispose of the matter at the earlier. Parties and Advocates to co- operate with the learned judge.

Sd/-

JUDGE RS/* CT-*Sk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court