Karnataka High Court
Shri Shaurya Babu Satheesh vs Smt Rashmi Nagendra Shesha on 30 March, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IQ
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR pp£I,1MIrJA"R"Y*§§EARiNO*-_ it
THIS DAY THE COURT lELEi{:OLLQV'JlNQ:1'A -- '-- " ~
On notice respondentV.is.'_pseryVedrand
The petition is filed by the the
Order passed by the No.6.
The said application is Order ll
Rules l 8: 4 seeking
permission 5to filelhvinterro:gat'O.ries=_ and eliciting certain
replies ;'i;:hia - l "»,:'The _ said applications were
seriously, opposed 'Z .. __"t.he petitioner--husband, but
neverthelesisgotheg Family Judge has accepted
r file it _____ .. s
2."The_ matter arises in the following manner:
The'; marriage between the petitioner and the
"ireispondent was performed in the year 2004 and during
wedlock a child was born. It is the case of the
respondent--wife that after one year of the birth of the
it child the petitioner--husband deserted and has been
living separately. The present proceedings are initiated fl/
/
E
by the husband seeking dissolution of the
Various grounds. After filing of the "
objections, the respondent«wife.:
application. The objections
application indicating that the*p:etitioner.is unemployed
and have no aVocatior1'g-Thisllprolrnrptedthe'respondents
wife in making the present applirilatiolrnif.
3. l application filed before the
Family J f if
application and the
interrogatories are Vevryigeneral in nature commencing
,_.fro1'nl':th,.eV. educatlilonal'lqualification of the petitioner and
:_ is working and his present salary.
There is_ 'also'. a reference to the income tax returns,
are "filed by her. Indeed, pursuant to the order
ll..flpasis.ed the learned Family Judge, the petitioner is
certainly not required to produce the documents in
"support of his contentions or objections, what he is
required to do is only to answer the interrogatories in
//
J
-
the affirmative or in the negative. I am of the View that ;< E the interrogatories are Very general in nature and cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest petitioner in any way. Having said so, I am : "
that the question of interference does not 2 '~:_','-V, .
stands rejected. -. _ , us' I SV.dIIV'«::'u"'~.,. SS