Bangalore District Court
Smt. Lubna Veronica @ Lubna vs Smt. Beulah Bau on 29 March, 2022
KABC010091542017
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet for
Judgmen
t in Suits
R.P. 91
PRESENT: SMT. PRASHANTHI.G.
B.A (Law) LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 29 th day of March 2022.
PLAINTIFF:: Smt. Lubna Veronica @ Lubna
Wife of Vincent.A.
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.126/1,
10th Cross, Bharathiyar Road,
Near Sadashiva Temple,
Ramaswamy Palya,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-560 033.
[By Sri K.N. Manjunath, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt. Beulah Bau,
Daughter of D.Babu,
Aged about 34 years,
No.21, Beereswara Building,
1st floor, 11th cross,
Seethapalya,
Oil Mill Road,
Bengaluru -560 084.
2. Stanley,
Son of Arokynathan,
2 O.S.2552/2017
.
Aged about 47 years, No.121, 10th cross, Bharathiyar Road, R.S.Palya, Bengaluru-560 033.
3. S. Kumar, Father's name not known, Aged about 55 years, No.208, 209, Sy.No.26/3A, Kasaba Hobli, Govindapuram, Bengaluru-560 045.
Deleted as per the memo of the plaintiff.
D1 - By Sri R.A. Dev Anand, Advocate D2 - Exparte Date of institution of the : 11/4/2017 suit Nature of the suit : For declaration and injunction Date of commencement of : 15/02/2021 recording of the evidence Date on which the : 29/03/2022 Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/ Month Day/s
Total duration s /s
4 11 18
(Prashanthi.G.)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration to declare that Master Daniel was 3 O.S.2552/2017 .
born to the plaintiff and her husband Vincent; and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, representatives, attorneys, agents, or any person claiming under them from forcefully taking away the plaintiff's child from the plaintiff by way of illegal means, in any manner; and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, her henchmen, representatives, attorneys, agents, or any person claiming under them, from claiming any right over the plaintiff's child Daniel in any manner; and for the cost of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that, It is the case of the plaintiff that the marriage of the plaintiff and her husband Mr. Vincent was performed on 24/10/2000 as per the Christian Rites and customs in Archdiocese of Bengaluru. By the wedlock of plaintiff and her husband Mr. Vincent, a male child was born on 21/7/2015 at Sridevi Hospital, at Chennai. The said Child was named as Daniel, presently under the care and custody of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff had gone to Chennai to attend a family function, during which time the plaintiff developed labour pain and she was admitted to Sridevi hospital at Chennai 4 O.S.2552/2017 .
and wherein she gave birth to a male child and same written statement normal delivery. Thereafter the plaintiff has got discharged on 22/7/2015 and returned to Bangalore.
Master Daniel is under the care and custody of the plaintiff and her husband Mr. Vincent.
When such being the case, the defendants who is utter stranger to the plaintiff and her family has came to the house of the plaintiff on 3.4.2017 along with henchmen tried to take away the plaintiff's child from the plaintiff by way of force. When plaintiff questioned the illegal acts of the defendants, the defendants demanded money from the plaintiff or else threatened to claim the child belongs to her and would take away/kidnap the child from the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are trying to extort money from her and with the help of well wishers and neighbours, the plaintiff has resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and the defendants went away posing threat to the plaintiff and her husband to come with more men and defendants are frequently interfering with the day to day affairs of the plaintiff and her husband. When the plaintiff went to the 5 O.S.2552/2017 .
jurisdiction police and sought protection, but the police refused to receive the complaint and directed the plaintiff to approach competent Court of law.
The cause of action to file the suit arose on 3.4.2017 when the defendants and her henchmen came to the plaintiff's house and tried to forcefully and illegally take away /kidnap the plaintiff's child from the plaintiff's custody and claiming false right over the child, which was resisted by the plaintiff with great difficulty and the said cause of action is continuous in nature and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit in the ends of the justice.
3. After issuance of suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. Suit summons to defendant no.2 though served by this Court, he remained absent and therefore placed exparte. Advocate for the plaintiff filed memo and deleted defendant no.3 as he is not a necessary party to the suit. Therefore, defendant no.3 is deleted.
4. The main contention of the defendant no.1 in the written statement are as under:
6 O.S.2552/2017
.
This defendant submits that, the suit itself is not maintainable since the Court has no jurisdiction to try the above case since the Family Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the disputes touching the family matter. Therefore, on this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In view of the Family Court having declared as to what are all the nature of the dispute concerning the family as per Section 9 of the CPC, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit before this Court. Therefore, the present suit is strictly not maintainable either in law or facts of the case.
It is not within the knowledge of the defendant no.1 that the plaintiff was married to one Vincent Abraham on 24/10/2000 at Bengaluru in accordance with the Christian rights and rituals. Further, it is a blatant lie which the plaintiff has spoken that out of the wedlock, a child was born on 21/7/2015 at Sridevi hospital, Chennai and the said child was named as Daniel.
It is submitted that, the plaintiff has spoken false that she had give birth to said ward at Sridevi hospital at Chennai and she was discharged on 22/7/2015 while she had gone to Chennai to attend a family function. However 7 O.S.2552/2017 .
it is correct that Daniel is presently under the custody of the plaintiff and he is 1 years 9 months old. The entire allegation describing the interference of the defendant in order to remove the custody of the ward from the custody of the plaintiff in the event if the plaintiff refuses to give them money and their interference is irresistible and even the jurisdictional police has refused to extend any help or protection are all false. The cause of action stated in the plant is false episode of the plaintiff.
This defendant submits the true facts of the case as follows:
The defendant no.1 took and grow up at no.6/190, Rajeshwari Nagar, Annexe Karambkam, Porur of Chennai in the company of her parents by name Mr. Joseph Babu and Nancy Gomathi. Till the first marriage with D.Vijay which took place in the city of Chennai according to the Christian tradition, she was residing with their parents, however said marriage was ended in divorce in the year 2010 and through the first marriage, the defendant no.1 got a daughter by name Baby Arsheya. After the divorce, she went back to her parents house and she was living along with their parents till the end of February 2014. 8 O.S.2552/2017
.
In view of the first marriage, having been ended in divorce she decided to live with their parents along with their daughter to seek an employement in the city of Madras. The plaintiff's husband after coming to know the defendant no.1 through facebook in the month of December 2013 and having taken interest in her and as the plaintiff's husband was a frequent visitor to the city of Chennai since he is having a small scale industry in Korur which lies at a distance of 30 KM from the city of Chennai. For the first time, the husband of the plaintiff took interest to meet the defendant no.1 in January 2014 at Palavaram Church in Chennai.
On their first visit and meeting at Pallavaram Church in the month of January 2014, the plaintiff husband was very much appreciated by the conduct of the defendant no.1 with regard to the briefing about her personal life open heartedly. The plaintiff husband determined to have live in relationship with defendant no.1 and he briefed the defendant no.1 that he has separated recently from his wife Smt. Lubna and he is a small scale industrialist permanently residing in the city of Bengaluru. The plaintiff's husband gave a word of assurance to the 9 O.S.2552/2017 .
defendant no.1 that he would take her into his company and she should wait for some time. The defendant no.1 reposing the good trust and confidence believed the words of the plaintiff's husband and hoped that all the things would go well in the future.
After learning that defendant no.1 is jobless and she has a daughter to support, the plaintiff's husband was interested in the defendant no.1 to take up the work in the private establishment and to give a piece of advice to the defendant no.1 that he would financially help her to take up the construction of the first floor on the existing building so as to earn money by conducting the coaching classes for the students of the various grades for her survival. The plaintiff's husband went on crediting the amount by way of deposit in her SB account which is in the State Bank of India at Porur Branch at Chennai from 2/6/21014 to 3/12/2014 on various dates and various amounts in order to help the defendant no.1 financially to take out the construction of the first floor for the purpose of conducting the tuition and earning the money. The plaintiff's husband started crediting money to the acocunt of the defendant. The passbook produced by the 10 O.S.2552/2017 .
defendant is clear in that regard. The plaintiff's husband used to visit the city of Chennai twice in the month and stay with the defendant no.1 in her parental house. Plaintiff husband accepted the defendant no.1 to have legal relationship and then marry her, later his attitude was changed. During her stay in the city of Chennai, she was conceived and the plaintiff's husband helped the defendant in all respects towards the medical care. Afterwards, she has took the several medical test with the help and assistance of the plaintiff's husband and she has produced the documents in order to support her contentions. On 11/8/2015, she delivered a child by name Daniel in the hospital. Some photographs were taken in the event of cake cutting ceremony within the premises of the hospital. The entire medical expenses was borne by the plaintiff's husband. In all the medical records, the defendant has signed as husband of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is married and residing with her husband Vincent Abraham and fearing out break of news of live-in relationship with defendant no.1 and the consequences that would follow, the plaintiff's husband mastered a plan of obtaining an agreement in the nature 11 O.S.2552/2017 .
of memorandum of understanding from the defendant no.1 stating that he is issueless and therefore on certain terms and conditions the defendant no.1 agreed to act as surrogate mother for purpose of procreation of the child for the continuity of the generation. The defendant no.1 taking into consideration the risk of the defendants may have to face fully believed the words of the plaintiff's husband, and without any force though on the issue and signed the Memorandum of Understanding dated 7/3/2015 during her 4th month of pregnancy. Therefore, said agreement was only a name sake agreement and it was not really meant to defendant no.1 to act as a surrogate mother to lend her womb for purpose of conceiving a child. Therefore, said agreement is not an agreement for the defendant no.1 to meant to act as surrogate mother. But, in fact, she is a person having live- in relationship with the plaintiff's husband. In order to highlight the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 7/3/2015 is a name sake document which has come into being the plaintiff's husband secretly deposited Rs.2,00,000/- into the acocunt of defendant no.1, in State Bank of India, Porur Branch, Chennai, by himself through 12 O.S.2552/2017 .
his Bank Agency and got amount credited into her account, which defendant no.1 has never aware of.
It is also equally important to state that from the conduct of the relationship which plaintiff's husband has built with the defendant no.1 since January 2014 as narrated above and continue to deposit money into account of defendant no.1 by the plaintiff's husband and his regular monthly visits to the place of residence of the defendant no.1, if summed up the net result is that the defendant no.1 was not a surrogate mother and in fact, it is a live-in-relationship. The said Memorandum of Understanding executed in a strict as well, loose sense in the light of what is narrated above would go to show that the said agreement was not really meant to be an agreement which has come into being to cover up the act of surrogacy of the defendant no.1. Therefore, defendant no.1, is seeking for a declaration that the said Memorandum of Understanding is to be declared as nominal one and existing in the name only and does not imply the defendant no.1 to act as a surrogate mother at all, and as such, said Memorandum of Understanding is totally, an invalid document without any legal effect. 13 O.S.2552/2017
.
It is highly relevant to state that from the day one when plaintiff's husband personally met the defendant no.1 as narrated above, he was actively in touch with the defendant no.1 over phone basically to inqure into about defendant no.1's welfare and well-being and that of the child. In fact, defendant no.1 also in turn kept calling the plaintiff's husband over phone to interact each one's personal feelings. This intention of the plaintiff's husband to converse on daily basis with the defendant no.1 reinforces the fact that the defendant no.1 and plaintiff's huband were in live-in relationship.
It is also very much necessary to state that the defendant no.1 after the birth of the child on 11/8/2014 and stayed with the plaintiff's husband at the address shown and referred to in cause -title till May 2016. After required stay at the Hospital as inpatient, she was brought back with the child and she continued her stay in the same premises till May 2016. The defendant no.1 immediately lodged a police complaint on 15/12.2016. In response to the complaint, the jurisdictional police, Banaswadi police summoned the plaintiff's husband and questioned him about his irrational behavior and offered a 14 O.S.2552/2017 .
statement in writing denying live-in-relationship and stated that defendant no.1 is only a surrogate mother.
During her stay after post pregnancy, plaintiff's husband took all care regarding the health and well-being of defendant no.1 and her child and birth of the child was not announced by the plaintiff's husband and it was kept as a matter of secret. All of a sudden, in the month of May 2015, she was forcibly sent away with her daughter retaining the newly born child without making any arrangement for the defendant no.1 have the roof over her head. Every month she was being paid Rs.10,000/- through his mother at her door steps for her sustenance till November 2016. Furthermore, the child was being brought and allowed to be with defendant no.1 once in every week, for some time and withdraw the child from her company thereafter. In this regard, color photographs has been taken in order to show that the child is being allowed in the company of the mother- defendant no.1. Since, day after day, plaintiff's husband has started slowly performing advisory acts in order to have an effect of withdrawal of the rights of the defendant no.1 over the child. The demand notice o.1 has filed for the 15 O.S.2552/2017 .
guardianship of the child in G & W. C. No.350/2016 before the Hon'ble Court and which is now pending before the V Addl. Family Court Judge at Bangalore wherein notices have been ordered on Main Petition and as well as on IA., and same has been served on the plaintiff's husband and defendant no.1 is contesting the same.
It is very relevant to state that the preparation of Memorandum of Understanding was not discussed by the plaintiff's husband with the defendant no.1 and it was a unilateral act of the defendant in preparing Memorandum of Understanding that the defendant no.1 has agreed to act as a surrogate mother and the same was brought after it was made ready at his instance and presented to the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff's husband alone and requested the defendant no.1 to sign the said agreement. The defendant no.1 read the document and questioned the plaintiff's husband as to why this situation. The plaintiff's husband informed the defendant no.1 that this document is prepared to act as a shield to cover up the relationship from being mis-understood by his wife, Smt. Lubna, the plaintiff.16 O.S.2552/2017
.
It is important to note that before the defendant no.1 conceived, both defendant no.1 and plaintiff's husband have undergone lot of medical tests so that the defendant no.1 should give birth to child. In all such medial tests which took place at Chennai Fertility Centre at Chennai, both the defendant no.1 and plaintiff's husband have signed as husband and wife and some of the medical documents would even bear the photographs of both.
The defendant no.1 in due course of time would take steps to summon the documents from Chennai Fertility Centre, in order to prove she never acted as a surrogate mother or substitute mother.
It is also further required to be stated that defendant no.1 in order to exercise her right over the custody of child, which custody of child is with the plaintiff herein, the defendant no.1 has taken up proceedings in G & WC No. 350/2016 before the V Addl. Family Court at Bangalore, wherein, the plaintiff's husband has been arrayed as defendant and who has received the notice and has entered appearances before the Court and contesting and also plaintiff herein has filed an IA to seek to implead 17 O.S.2552/2017 .
herself as a party - respondent no.2 in the above case and for which defendant no.1 herein is contesting the same.
In addition to taking up above proceedings under G & WC Act, the defendant no.1 also filed a suit in O.S.No.23/2017 before the V Addl Family Court at Bengaluru against the plaintiff's husband seeking for the following reliefs:
a) to declare that relationship of the plaintiff (defendant no.1 herein) with the defendant ( plaintiff's husband) is a LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP.
b) To declare that the Memorandum of Understanding reached between plaintiff ( defendant no.1 herein( with the defendant ( plaintiff's husband) on 7/3/2017, is a nominal one and plaintiff never agreed to nor consented to act as a surrogate mother as recited in the said Memorandum of Understanding.
It is very important to state that the husband of the plaintiff is contemplating filing of a suit by defendant no.1 herein, lodged a Caveat Petition in Caveat Petition No.49/2016 on 17/12/2016 before the Family Court against the defendant no.1 herein. In the said Caveat Petition, the husband of the plaintiff has clearly stated on 18 O.S.2552/2017 .
oath that since he was child-less, under the Laws of Surrogacy, defendant no.1 was requested to lend her womb to beget a child and in this regard, Memorandum of Understanding has been reached between defendant no.1 and the husband of plaintiff on 7/3/2015. This document is more than enough to declare in so many words as to the conduct of the plaintiff and her husband in filing the above suit on the false ground that said ward, Daniel is born to them at Sridevi Hospital in Chennai on 21/2/2015. This is clear case of fruad that has been played upon by the plaintiff in connivance with her husband Sri Vincent Abraham to abuse the process of law.
It is settled Law of the Apex Court that whenever the Hon'ble Court comes to the knowledge that any fraudulent acts are played by any one of the parties to suit, it is enough for the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit out- rightly. It is not out of contest to state that on the set of false facts and by playing a same fraud, the plaintiff have managed to get an order of exparte temporary injunction against the defendant no.1 herein on 11/4/2017. This is a classic case where plaintiff and her husband under the 19 O.S.2552/2017 .
cover of legal action hatching a plan and trying to establish the Guardian rights of father and mother over the said ward, Daniel, who is the son born to defendant no.1, as their's. In fact, defendant no.1 if situation and circumstances so warrants, would not hesitate to take re- course to Law, to seek D.N.A. Test in order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of alleged claim of plaintiff that she was natural mother of said ward, Daniel.
The defendant no.2 is none other than direct cousin of plaintiff's husband and defendant no.3 is the sister's son of plaintiff's husband, they have been arrayed as parties to the suit in order to obtain a decree fraudulently.
The defendant no.1 is contemplating to initiate Criminal Proceedings as against plaintiff and her husband who are instrumental in creating a fraudulent case and abusing the process of law.
All the allegations which are not specifically traversed are denied as false, subjecting the plaintiff to strict proof.
For the above said reasons, defendant no.1 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. 20 O.S.2552/2017
.
7. In view of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that Master Daniel was born to plaintiff and her husband?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is attempting to take away the plaintiff's child forcefully by illegal means?
(3) Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? (4) Whether the defendant proves that the memorandum of understanding dated 7/3/2015 is valid?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for?
(6) What order or decree?
8. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and closed her side of evidence. On behalf of defendants, neither they examined any witness not produced any documents.
9. Heard arguments of both the sides. 21 O.S.2552/2017
.
10. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative;
Issue No.2: In the affirmative;
Issue No.3: In the negative;
Issue No.4: In the negative;
Issue No.5: In the affirmative;
Issue No.6: As per final order; for
the following:
11. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2: It is the case of the
plaintiff that, from the wedlock of plaintiff and her
husband, a male child was born on 21/7/2015 at Sridevi Hospital, Chennai. In the plaint averments as well as in the depositions of PW.1, she has clearly stated that, while she was in Chennai, she developed a labour pain and admitted to the hospital at Chennai and delivered male child by name Daniel. In support of the contentions of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P1 document which is the certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Sridevi Hospital which clearly shows that the plaintiff delivered a baby on 21/7/2015 and she was in hospital till 22/7/2015 and discharged. Ex.P2 is the discharge 22 O.S.2552/2017 .
summary issued by the hospital which also supports the case of the plaintiff.
12. On the other hand, the defendant contended that, in view of the live-in relationship of defendant along with the husband of the plaintiff, a male child by name Daniel was born. Further, she contended that, the husband of the plaintiff made her to believe that he is a divorcee and soon he is going to marry her and believing that person, she developed intimacy with that person and in turn gave birth to a male child. The defendant in the written statement categorically admitted that, all the expenses of the defendant are borne by the husband of the plaintiff itself. In this regard, she has also approached the family Court and filed application in Guardian and Ward case no. 350/2016. It is the contention of the defendants that, in view of the relationship between the plaintiff's husband and this defendant, Daniel was born. However, it is important to note here that, the family Court rejected all the applications filed by the defendant and rejected her contentions. Further, from the documents produced by the plaintiff as per Ex.P6, the Guardian and Wards case filed by the defendant was 23 O.S.2552/2017 .
dismissed for non-prosecution. So, whatever the attempts made by the defendant in order to take the custody of the child become in vain and therefore, no much importance is given to the cases filed by the defendant before the Family Court.
13. Even the same contentions are taken by the PW.1 in her chief examination. Even after the sufficient opportunities, the defendant did not came forward in order to cross-examine PW.1 eventhough she has vehemently contended that, Daniel is his child. The evidence of the PW.1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that whatever the contentions taken by the defendant is not correct. On the other hand, the plaintiff has easily proved Issue No.1 in her favour.
14. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant is the utter stranger to the plaintiff and she came to the house of the plaintiff for several times and tried to take away the plaintiff's child by force. The plaintiff questioned the acts of the defendants. However, the defendant demanded the money and threatened to claim that child belongs to her. Even this aspect is further clear from filing of the separate applications by the 24 O.S.2552/2017 .
defendant before the Family Court itself. It is important to note here that, though the present suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction. It is clear that, the acts of the attempts of taking away the child from the custody of the plaintiff is clear from the acts of the defendants such as filing of the separate applications before the Family Court itself. Though the evidence of the PW.1 is not challenged by the defendant, from the documents produced by the plaintiff, it is clear that, the defendant has made all the attempts to take away the child of the plaintiff forcibly through the Court of law as well as by using the man force. Therefore, without much discussions, I answer Issue No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.3 AND 4: In the written statement averments itself, the defendant has contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for the want of jurisdiction. It is the contention of the defendant that, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the above case since it is connected to the family. Further, she has contended that, already she has filed a petition before the 25 O.S.2552/2017 .
Family Court for the custody of the child. However, this Court need not discuss Issue No.3 in detail because already this Court has passed the considered order with respect to the IA filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. This Court has dismissed the contentions of the defendant with regard to the aspect of jurisdiction claimed by her. Therefore, Court need not discuss with regard to the aspect of maintainability once again.
16. It is further the contention of the defendant that, in view of the live-in relationship between the plaintiff's husband and defendant, she has become pregnant. However, in order to avoid the problem the plaintiff's husband managed to obtain Memorandum of Understanding dated 7/3/2015 which shows that, the defendant is the surrogate mother and soonafter the delivery, she has to handover the said child in favour of the plaintiff's husband. Though the defendant has stated that, this Memorandum of Understanding has been entered between the parties, she has not entered the witness box in order to lead evidence before the court. The validity of that document dated 7/3/2015 can be 26 O.S.2552/2017 .
determined only if the defendant appeared before the Court and led evidence to that effect. However, after the passing of the orders with regard to order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, the defendant did not came forward in order to proceed with the case, nor she has cross-examined PW.1 and she did not led evidence. An adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant in this regard. Therefore, without much discussion, the court is of the opinion that whatever the contentions taken by the defendant in her written statement with respect to any aspect including the document dated 7/3/2015 is not proved by her. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 and 4 in the negative.
17. ISSUE NO.5: The suit of the plaintiff is to declare that Master Daniel was born to the plaintiff and her husband Vincent. This fact has been undoubtedly proved by the plaintiff as per Issue No.1 and 2. Further, as discussed supra in Issue No.3 and 4, the defendants have failed to prove the fact of maintainability of the suit and also memorandum of understanding dated 7/3/2015 is valid, before the Court. Therefore, without much discussion, the court is of the opinion that plaintiff has 27 O.S.2552/2017 .
proved Issue No.5 in her favour. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in the affirmative.
18. ISSUE NO.6: From my above discussions and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
It is hereby declared that Master Daniel was born to the plaintiff and her husband Vincent.
Further, the defendants, their henchmen, representatives, attorneys, agents, or any person claiming under them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction, from forcefully taking away the plaintiff's child from the plaintiff by way of illegal means, in any manner.
The defendants, her henchmen, representatives, attorneys, agents, or any person claiming under them are further restrained by way of permanent injunction from claiming any right over the plaintiff's child Daniel in any manner.28 O.S.2552/2017
.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 29 th day of March 2022.) [Prashanthi.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Lubna Veronica @ Lubna
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the
Defendant/s:
NIL.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the
Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 Certificate issue by the Sri Devi Hospital
dated 22/07/2015 (subject to proof).
Ex.P2 Discharge summary issued by Sri Devi Hospital.
Ex.P3 Certified copy of orders passed on IA
No.2 in Guardian Wards Case
No.350/2016.
Ex.P4 Certified copy of orders passed on IA
No.5 in Guardian Wards Case
No.350/2016.
Ex.P5 CD
29 O.S.2552/2017
.
Ex.P6 Certified copy of the order sheet in G & WC 350/2016.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
[Prashanthi.G] XVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.3 O.S.2552/2017
2 .
29/3/2022 For Judgment.
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed. It is hereby declared that Master Daniel was born to the plaintiff and her husband Vincent. Further, the defendants, their henchmen, representatives, attorneys, agents, or any person claiming under them are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction, from forcefully taking away the plaintiff's child from the plaintiff by way of illegal means, in any manner.
The defendants, her henchmen,
representatives, attorneys, agents, or any
person claiming under them are further
restrained by way of permanent injunction from claiming any right over the plaintiff's child Daniel in any manner.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Prashanthi.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
3 3 .
3 4 .
fff ffff 3 5 .