Manmohan Attavar vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar

1. The appellant is 84 years old and the respondent is 62 years old. The respondent seeks to establish her status as the wife/companion of the appellant who has been left high and dry by the appellant while on the other hand the appellant categorically denies any such status.

2. The admitted facts are that the respondent was married to Digitally signed by USHA RANI BHARDWAJ one Shri Harish Chander Chhabra. That marriage did not work Date: 2017.07.14 16:59:52 IST Reason:

3. It is the respondent’s claim that from 2002-2008 the respondent was made to stay in different residences hired by the appellant. But apparently the relationship soured. The endeavors for reconciliation, however, did not succeed. The wife of the appellant was incidentally alive at that time and she passed away 3 on 22.2.2010. The endeavor, prior to this, by the respondent seeking remedy for what she claims to be her neglect, through the Women and Child Welfare Department of State of Karnataka, also did not succeed.

4. The respondent claims to have made various efforts by approaching authorities and high dignitaries apart from police authorities but to no avail.

5. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’) on 16.9.2013 being Criminal Misc. Petition No.179 of 2013. This case is stated to have been re-numbered as Crl. Misc. Application No.139 of 2015. The endeavor of the appellant seeking quashing of these proceedings before the High Court vide Criminal Writ Petition No.6126/2013 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) did not succeed and petition was dismissed on 2.1.2015. The trial went on and at the request of the respondent made under Section 410 of the Cr.P.C., the application was transferred from the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate–VI to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-II at Bangalore. This application was finally dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 30.7.2015. 4

6. The respondent, aggrieved by the said order, filed Criminal Appeal No.1070/2015 under Section 29 of the D.V. Act on 18.8.2015 which was assigned to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge presiding over Court 67. The interim relief prayed for in this petition was, however, rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 5.11.2015.

7. The respondent again sought a transfer from that court and the appeal was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge presiding over Court No.53 vide order dated 16.2.2016. A second application was filed by the respondent for stay of the impugned order for interim maintenance. The respondent was once again aggrieved by the conduct of the proceedings during the hearing of the interim application and submitted a complaint to the High Court of Karnataka. In terms of an administrative order of the Registrar General of the High Court, the application was called upon to be decided on or before 30.4.2016. The application was rejected on 21.4.2016 as being not maintainable. The applications filed for additional evidence by the respondent also met an adverse fate.

10. On service being effected on the appellant, the writ petition was opposed along with the prayer for vacation of the ex-parte order. It is the case of the appellant that instead of deciding the Interlocutory Application, the appellant was compelled to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- as a onetime payment. This order is stated to have been challenged in SLP No.33150 of 2016. In fact the declining of interim relief by the appellate court was not even specifically challenged before the High Court and yet the High Court granted an ex parte order.

(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or

18. We are thus unequivocally of the view that the nature of the ex-parte order passed on 19.9.2016 permitting the respondent to occupy the premises of the appellant cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and consequently Civil Appeal No.2500 of 2017 is liable to be allowed.

24. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge nor can we fault the appellate authority on any account which could have necessitated such withdrawal of the proceedings to the High Court.

26. We thus set aside even the order dated 24.10.2016 and allow Civil Appeal No.2502/2017. We request the learned Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side to nominate any of the ASJs in Bangalore to hear the appeal of the respondent and the appellate authority shall endeavor to 13 conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

27. The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs with the hope that there would be an early end to this contentious dispute between the two parties.

July 14, 2017.