Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rajashree vs Sri.Yogesh S/O Subhash Potadar on 28 March, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P.No.200912/2018 (GM-FC)
Between:
Smt. Rajashree W/o Yogesh Potadar
Age: 29 years, Occ: Household work
R/o: C/o: Vilasrao S/o Bhagwan Pandit
Laddikatti Hanuman Temple
Vijaypur - 586 101
... Petitioner
(By Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant, Advocate)
And:
Sri Yogesh S/o Subhash Potadar
Age: 33 years, Occ: Nil
R/o: Plot No.24, Ganesh Plaza
Near Shivai Mata Mandir
Mugale Anna Nagar
Dhanakwadi, Pune - 411 043
(Maharashtra State)
... Respondent
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the vide at Annexure-E order dated 27.01.2018
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.446/2016 on the file of
the Principal Judge Family Court Vijayapura at Vijayapura.
2
This petition is coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The respondent in Crl.Misc.No.446/2016 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 27.01.2018, wherein the prayer of the petitioner seeking recall of P.W.1 by filing application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is rejected.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned.
3. On going through the same, it is seen that the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.446/2016 is initiated by respondent herein under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., wherein his prayer is to cancel the maintenance awarded to the petitioner herein at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month as per judgment dated 03.03.2011 passed in Crl.Misc.No.365/2010.
3
4. Admittedly, the respondent is resident of Dhankwadi, Poona (MH). The proceedings initiated by him is in the Family Court at Vijayapur. The record would indicate that he has suffered paralysis to his lower limb and he has difficulty in travelling from Poona to Vijayapura without assistance of other persons to change his clothes as he has no control over his bladders. In this background, the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking recall of P.W.1, namely, the respondent in this proceedings is opposed.
5. The Court below on appreciating the grounds urged in the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC by the petitioner herein and as well as the objection as stated supra filed by the respondent has dismissed the application by its order dated 27.01.2018. While doing so, it has observed that the physical condition of P.W.1 was noticed by the Court and that on an earlier occasion i.e., on 12.10.2017, P.W.1 is fully cross-examined by the counsel who appeared for respondent in the said proceedings, the petitioner herein. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion 4 that no merits are there to consider the application filed by the wife seeking recall of P.W.1, namely, her husband in Crl.Misc.No.446/2016, accordingly dismissed the same.
6. On going through the order impugned, this Court find no justifiable grounds to interfere with the same inasmuch as the order being just and proper. In the factual situation, question of interfering with the same in writ jurisdiction does not arise.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL* Ct: RRJ