Karnataka High Court
Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Sri. Manmohan Attavar on 24 October, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.49153 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar,
Wife of Manmohan Attavar (Avouched)
Age 61+ years,
C/o. 38/1, 30th Cross,
3rd Main, 7th Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 082.
...PETITIONER
(By Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar - Petitioner [Party-in-
Person] )
AND:
Sri. Manmohan Attavar,
Son of Mutthappa Attavar,
Age 83+ years,
Residing at 38/1,
30th Cross 3rd Main,
7th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 0832.
... RESPONDENT
(By Shri S. Shekar Shetty, Advocate)
*****
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to appellate Court LIII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore order dated 10.8.2016,
vide Annexure-M does not inspire faith that justice and equity will
prevail in the Final Order. In DV case, their lies just one appeal
under Section 29 of the DV Act and also praying to Criminal
Appeal 1070/2015 be heard in this Hon'ble Court for finality and
grant of all reliefs under DV Act as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the DV case
(Crl.Appeal No.1070/2015).
This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved on
4.10.2016 and coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
Heard the petitioner appearing in person and Shri Shekar Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This may indeed be misconceived. That, however, would not result in the petition being dismissed mechanically. The actual relief that the petitioner seeks is the withdrawal of the appeal, (preferred by her against an order of the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bangalore, rejecting her petition under Section 12 of the Protection of 3 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,) now pending before the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, to this court for disposal. Therefore, it would have been appropriate to file an application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is no impediment, however, for this court to treat this petition as an application filed under Section 407 Cr.PC. or for this Court to act under the said provision, on taking note of the petitioner's prayer, notwithstanding Shri Shetty's vehement objection as to the matter of form.
3. The sum and substance of the petitioner's grievance is that she and the respondent had a torrid physical and emotional relationship for several years, which had flowered even during the subsistence of her marriage and had assumed full blown proportions, after her divorce from her legally wedded husband. But with advancing age, the respondent had chosen to disown her. She had given up a bright and prestigious career for a life with the respondent and is now a destitute with little energy left to resume 4 her academic career. She claims her due from the respondent, for having exploited the best years of her life.
4. The trial court, on a critical examination of the evidence, has concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish her case for any relief whatsoever.
The appellate court had refused any interim relief in the first instance. The petitioner is seen to have approached the Sessions Court seeking a transfer of the appeal, which had been granted. On such transfer the petitioner had again sought interim reliefs, coining the prayers in the manner she knew best. The court below instead of placing the petitioner on terms and calling upon her to argue the appeal itself on merits, had chosen to hear the applications which were not maintainable and in the face of the earlier order, has now passed a predictable order. This was a waste of precious court time.
The case is not of such a complex nature as would require a long drawn out hearing.
5
It is also noticed that petitioner's informal style of narration and her endeavour to make out a case on the bits and pieces of her past, which she may not have documented with the intention of initiating the proceedings which she is now pursuing, is not seen to be appreciated in the right perspective.
It is hence found necessary by this court, that in the interest of justice and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, that the appeal should be withdrawn from the court below and be heard by this court.
It is Ordered that the appeal in Crl. A. No. 1070 / 2015 on the file of the LIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore be withdrawn from the said court and placed before this court along with the lower court records for disposal.
The Registry to forthwith secure the papers from the court below. The matter is to be posted for further orders on receipt of the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS*