TH FLOOR LUKE TOWER, S v. ROAD, AMBOLI ANDHERI
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23055 WP No. 5546 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 5546 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MRS.DELMA LUBNA COELHO AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O DR. EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES, RESIDING AT A-1201, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 12TH FLOOR LUKE TOWER, S. V. ROAD, AMBOLI ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400 058
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23055 WP No. 5546 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: DR.EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O MR. EDWARD FERNANDES, RESIDING AT FERNANDES ENCLAVE, MELINA MOGERU, FALNIR, MANGALURU - 575 002 (BY SRI.S.P.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 14.02.2025 PASSED ON MC NO. 331 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO. XVI AND I.A.NO. XVII AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23055 WP No. 5546 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.16 and 17 in MC.No.331/2021 dated 14.02.2025 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, the wife is before this court. 2. By the impugned order the court had dismissed the I.A.No.16 and 17 filed by the wife. The wife had come up with two applications to summon the 7 witnesses and to produce the bank statement of the husband which are joint accounts of the husband along with his family members. That application came to be dismissed and the family court observed that after considering the contents of both the applications and affidavits, the court is not going to decided the alleged financial misappropriation said to have been committed by the husband and his parents. There is no material to show that after the marriage the husband has diverted the amount from his individual account and business account. The submission of the husband is that their marriage ended in 40 days. Therefore, summoning of the documents pertaining to third parties and joint account appearing in the name of the husband and his - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23055 WP No. 5546 of 2025 HC-KAR parents are not relevant for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and accordingly dismissed the applications. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that earlier when an application is filed by the petitioner for the very same relief i.e., I.A.No.7 an order was passed on 04.04.2024 wherein the court passed a detailed reason and observes that the application is premature and in other words really the said statements of the bank accounts and other accounts pertaining to the husband are relevant, then the same can be summoned when the evidence of the wife commences that too after securing the details of the addresses of the said banks/institutions. Moreover based on the information available in the TIS of the petitioner, the counsel for the wife can effectively cross examine and elicite the information from the mouth of the husband about the accounts and particulars. If the husband does not wish to produce those documents during his cross-examination and fails to disclose the details or information of the same, then an adverse inference can be drawn. Now after the cross-examination of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23055 WP No. 5546 of 2025 HC-KAR the husband these applications are filed and the present reasoning that is given by the family runs contrary to the findings that are given on that date. It is further submitted that the order passed by the family court is not a well considered one. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/ husband submits that by filing one application or the other, the wife is protracting the proceedings and also certain documents are filed before the court to show that she is already drawing pension from Canadian Government and also she is seeking maintenance from the courts in India. It is submitted that the MC is of the year 2021, time scheduled may be fixed so that on day to day basis the case has to be heard and expeditiously the
Decision
MC has to be disposed of. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This court has perused the impugned order as well as order passed on I.A.No.7 dated 04.04.2024. On 04.04.2024 order, the family court has given liberty to the petitioner/wife to come up with all the details and with an appropriate application at an appropriate stage and also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23055 WP No. 5546 of 2025 HC-KAR held that the application is premature as on that date. This court has perused the impugned order, the court has come up altogether with different reasoning which cannot be appreciated. In the considered opinion of this court, in the light of the earlier order and with all the details they have come up before this court now, the court ought to have allowed this application. Then coming to the submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband, with regard to pension that she is receiving from Canada and maintenance from the Courts in India, this court in the limited scope of adjudication in this petition, cannot go into all those details and the respondent is at liberty to raise all these issues before the family court and other submission with regard to expeditious disposal of MC, this court has perused the docket proceedings which shows that one after the other several applications were filed and in view of these applications, inspite of order passed by this court, the court is not in a position to dispose of the matter. 6. In the light of the above discussion, this court is passing the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23055 WP No. 5546 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER i. The order passed on I.A.No.16 and 17 in MC.No.331/2021 dated 14.02.2025 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru is set aside. Consequently, the I.A.No.16 and 17 are Allowed subject to admisability and in accordance with law. ii. The family court shall take up this matter on a day to day basis and unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted. At a outer limit of three months this matter shall be disposed off. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. iv. All pending I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26