SRI ABHIJIT ASHITKUMAR MUKHERJEE vs. MRS. SANCHARITA ABHIJIT MUKHERJEE

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No.52627 OF 2015 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Abhijit Ashitkumar Mukherjee, Son of Ashit Mukherjee, Aged 35 years, Residing at D/1, Agneya Apartment, 4th Floor, Tikekar Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur 440 012.

…PETITIONER.

(By Shri. R. Satishchandra , Advocate)

AND:

Mrs. Sanchairta Abhijit Mukherjee, Daughter of Sachin Chatterjee, Aged about 30 years, Residing at Flat No.203, Kalyani Sunshine Apartments, Site No.744/81, Doraisanipalya Belekahalli, B.G.Road, Bangalore 560 076.

…RESPONDENT

2 This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records from the file of M.C.No.1576/2014, by the III Additional Family Court, Bangalore and quash the order passed on I.A. filed under Order 11 Rule 16 of Code Civil Procedure dated 2.11.2015 passed in M.C.No.1576/2014 by the III Additional Family Court at Bangalore, the certified copy of the order sheet in M.C.No.1576/2014 containing the order dated 2.11.2015 kind perusal and marked as Annexure-A.

This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner was the respondent in a petition for divorce, filed by his wife. It transpires that the petition is filed on the ground of desertion under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The respondent – wife having tendered evidence, the matter was set down for cross-examination and was adjourned on two occasions at the instance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have sought for further time on the ground that he was filing an application under Order XI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’, for brevity), seeking

3 production of documents which he had listed out in the application numbering 10 thereof, as follows: “1. Respondent, petitioner with petitioner’s parents traveled in train and flight from Mumbai to Bangalore and Bangalore to Munnar (Kerala) for 9 days in the month of August 2012 – requested to produce the tickets. 2. Petitioner’s State Bank of India’s Passbook, Sector 17, Vashi Branch, Navi Mumbai from 1st November, 2009 to 17th of August 2013. 3. Petitioner’s job transfer letter from Mumbai to Bangalore issued by the PR Newswire Company / Petitioner’s office transfer letter from Mumbai to Bangalore. 4. Petitioner is directed to produce the FDR amounting to Rs.12 lakhs. 5. Petitioner’s Passport, Visa and Flight tickets from Mumbai to England (January, 2013). 6. Petitioner’s Bangalore address proof of the year 2012 and 2013. 7. Petitioner’s locker details Account No.102/103 at APMC, Masala Market, Vashi Branch, Navi Mumbai. 8. Petitioner’s Mobile No. 9769333498 details from 2009 to August 2013.

4 9. Petitioner’s United Kingdom Official trip details such as date of travel and date of return to Mumbai and number of days stayed with Mr. David Lowry of PR Newswire. 10. Petitioner’s income tax details i.e. Form 16 furnished by her employer for the year 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15.”

The court below having summarily rejected the application, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. As seen from the list of documents which the petitioner has sought that the respondent should produce, are her personal documents. It is not clear as to the reason why the petitioner was seeking these documents. The primary contention of the petitioner herein is to the effect that unless there was desertion for a period of two years prior to the petition, the petition would not be maintainable. If this is the primary contention, it is open for the petitioner to establish this circumstance by producing appropriate material. He would not require the personal documents of the respondent – wife, in

5 order to establish his case. This is the observation of the court below as well. In fact, under Order XI Rule 16 CPC, it is those documents which are referred to in the pleadings of the other party, which may be called for and the court may at its discretion, order the documents to be produced. It is not evident that the documents which the petitioner has sought have been referred to in the pleadings. Even if it is referred to in the pleadings, it is always the discretion of the court below either to direct production of the said documents or otherwise. There is no warrant to interfere with the order. The petitioner is at liberty to establish his case in several ways by producing independent documents from his side, as observed by the court below. The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE