Nisha Shailesh Kumar vs Shailesh Kumar on 6 March, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Nisha Shailesh Kumar vs Shailesh Kumar on 6 March, 2014

Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2014

                              BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

           WRIT PETITION NO.52880/2013 (GM-FC)

Between:

Nisha Shailesh Kumar,
W/o Shailesh Kumar,
Aged about 37 years,
R/a No.302, Deccan Chambers,
136, JSS Road,
Mumbai 400 004.                             .... Petitioner.

(By Smt. Melanie Sebastian, Adv.)

And:

Shailesh Kumar,
S/o late Janardhanachar,
Aged about 46 years,
R/a Shagil Precision India,
Nithyananda Nagar,
Derlakatte, Mangalore - 18.                 .... Respondent.

(By Smt. Nalina Mayegowda & Sri Missitlima Larence, Advs.)

                                ---
                                    2




       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 26.3.2013
in M.C.No.226/2012 on the file of the Family Court Judge,
Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, etc.

      This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court passed the following:

                               ORDER

This writ petition is directed against the order on I.A.No.2 in M.C.No.226/2012 dated 26.3.2013 on the file of the Family Court Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the documents has been rejected.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the documents such as income tax returns, monthly deposits of provident fund, ESI and TDS are necessary to decide the real question in controversy. The court below was therefore not justified in rejecting the application.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned order.

4. The respondent filed the petition before the trial Court seeking dissolution of marriage with the petitioner under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.. The point for consideration that would arise in the case is whether the petitioner after the solemnization of the marriage with the respondent, she had voluntary sexual intercourse with some other person and that she has treated the respondent with cruelty. A decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) can be granted only when the petitioner establishes the grounds urged in the application. The documents sought to be summoned are absolutely not necessary to decide the said issue. No purpose will be served by summoning the said documents. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 4

5. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition as above, I.A.No.I/2014 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

BMM/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court