Husband’s petition to present CCTV evidence and prove children unsafe with mother, rejected by court !!

Mohammed Zakir vs Smt. Shabana on 15 March, 2017

Mohammed Zakir vs Smt. Shabana on 15 March, 2017
Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Zakir vs Smt. Shabana on 15 March, 2017

Author: A.S.Bopanna

                         1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

     WRIT PETITION No.44349/2016 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED ZAKIR
S/O SHAKEEL AHAMED
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NO. 23/B, 10TH CROSS,
KUPPASWAMY LAYOUT,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
NAGAWARA, BANGALORE-45
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. TAJUDDIN, ADV.)

AND:

  1. SMT. SHABANA
    EX. W/O MOHAMMED ZAKIR
    D/O MOHAMMED YUNUS
    AGED ABOTU 31 YEARS
    R/O NO 20, 20TH MAIN,
    RAMASWAMY LAYOUT,
    J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-78
  2. MASTER. MOHAMMED ZIHAAN
    AGE ABOUT 9 YEARS
    S/O MOHAMMED ZAKIR
    R/O NO.20, 20TH MAIN
    RAMASWAMY LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR
    BANGALORE-78

  3. MISS. SUHANA SAIFI
    D/O MOHAMMED ZAKIR
    R/O NO. 20, 20TH MAIN
    RAMASWAMY LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR
    BANGALORE-78
    2

    RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS SINCE
    REP. BY THEIR MOTHER SMT. SHABANA
    1ST RESPONDENT
    … RESPONDENTS
    (BY SRI. KESHAVA KUMAR B, ADV.)

    THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
    THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR
    THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE
    PETITIONER; DIRECT TO THE VI ADDL. FAMILY COURT
    BANGALORE, TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-V ORDER
    DTD:8.7.2016 IN G & WC NO.8/2015 IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL,
    CIVIL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BANGALORE REJECTING IA
    UNDER SECTION 151 CPC AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
    HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
    FOLLOWING:

                   ORDER
    

    The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 08.07.2016 passed in G & WC No.8/2015 whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to produce additional material before the Court below is rejected. The petitioner is also seeking issue of direction to the Court below to dispose of G & WC No.8/2015 expeditiously.

  4. The petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents No.2 and 3. Due to certain disputes in their married life, they are residing separately. Among the other litigations pending between the parties, the petitioner herein has also instituted a petition under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act which is registered in G & WC No.8/2015. In the pending proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed an application seeking leave of the Court to produce the CCTV footage and other material where the petitioner is said to have recorded certain incidents which have taken place between the parties so as to put forth the case of the petitioner to seek custody of the children by pointing out that the children are not safe in the custody of the first respondent.

  5. The application was opposed by the first respondent. The Court below by the order impugned dated 08.07.2016 has rejected the application.

  6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers. At the outset, a perusal of the order impugned would disclose that the Court below has referred to the reasons for which such request had been made in the application and in that regard has arrived at the conclusion that the CC TV footage which is now sought to be produced by the petitioner in any event would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the custody of the children though that may be an issue linked to the matrimonial case.

  7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that the CCTV recording was also necessary herein to point out that the children would be safe in the custody of the petitioner but not in the custody of the first respondent as her brothers are involved in criminal activities which is sought to be demonstrated through the CCTV footage.

  8. Having considered these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the said aspect would not be relevant in the present circumstance. The guidelines are well laid down while considering grant of custody or otherwise of the children to the guardian to be appointed by the Court. Respondent No.1 in any event is the mother of respondents No.2 and 3 and as such in that background the consideration as to whether the custody is to be granted to the petitioner is to be made by the Court below based on the evidence that would be available on record and a CCTV footage of the present nature in any event would not clinch the issue. In any event, if the petitioner has other material with regard to such instances and the petitioner is referring to the statement that has been recorded in Crl.Misc.No.233/2013 relating to the said incident, certainly the petitioner would be entitled to call for such records or produce the same, but the request as made in the present application would not be justified. Therefore the Court below has not committed any error in that regard so as to call for interference.

  9. Insofar as the prayer made by the petitioner to direct the Court below to dispose of the matter expeditiously, it is needless to mention that every matter before the Court would have to be disposed of in an expeditious manner, but subject to the other limitations and impediments as also the Board of the Court. Therefore, a direction without reference to the nature of litigations pending before the Court below, the reason for which the present matter is being adjourned and the convenience of the Court would not be justified at this juncture. Therefore all that is necessary to be observed is that the petitioner would make a request before the Court below itself seeking early disposal of the petition. Depending on the circumstances as stated herein, the Court below itself will take a decision with regard to the matter and consider the same in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE akc/bms

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161216232/

Husband to pay 50 lakhs as permanent alimony and also provide a 1 crore worth house to CRUEL wife. 

YES the Supreme Court called the wife cruel for filing false cases, but still granted her all the money——-

/////Though we have held that the acts of the wife in filing false complaints against the husband amounts to cruelty, we are, however, not oblivious to the requirements of the wife to have a decent house where she can live. Her son and daughter-in-law may not continue to live with her forever. Therefore, some permanent arrangement has to be made for her alimony and residence. Keeping in view the status of the parties, we direct that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as one time permanent alimony and she will not claim any further amount at any later stage. This amount be paid within three months from today. We further direct that the wife shall continue to live in the house which belongs to the mother of the husband till the husband provides her a flat of similar size in a similar locality. For this purpose, the husband is directed to ensure that a flat of the value up to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) be transferred in the name of his wife and till it is provided, she shall continue to live in the house in which she is residing at present.////
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-JZGIVy-RW5WDJ0V2QtWDNGX00

Normally you go to jail after marriage. This fellow went to jail even before marriage…

From Facebook to jail: Jharkhand man marries in handcuffs after lover files FIR

Dhanbad,Jharkhand,INDIA, April 20;

Updated: Apr 21, 2017 13:40 IST
By Pankaj Kumar, Hindustan Times, New Delhi

They say marriages are made in heaven. But this one was kindled on the web, and blossomed in prison.

The groom came in a police van handcuffed, the bride with her parents in a car. The marriage registrar after going through their documents declared them husband and wife.

But this was no regular wedding. They fell in love on Facebook, he refused to marry her and she sent him to jail. But then, he had a change of heart. On Thursday, they wed in Dhanbad.

Unlike other couples who walk away from the ceremony hand-in-hand, this one parted ways. While the groom – 28-year-old Bihar engineer Ritesh Kumar — went back to jail, the bride – 23-year-old Sudipti Kumari — returned home with her parents.

The bride’s father, Haradhan Mahali, told reporters he respected her sentiments and love for Ritesh.

“When the offer for marriage came, I couldn’t say no. Now my priority would be to unite them at the earliest,” he said. The couple may finally be united when the case next comes up for hearing on Monday. The groom’s mother refused comment.

Police take Ritesh Kumar to jail after his court marriage on Thursday. (Pankaj Kumar/HT Photo)

Theirs is a love-hate-love relationship that culminated in marriage after a lot of upheavals, family members say.

The duo first met on Facebook in 2012 and chatted for long hours before they met, sources said. Soon the couple found themselves falling in love. Ritesh, who was working with the National Thermal Power Station in Kahalgaon, Bihar, would often visit Dhanbad to see her.

They also apparently married in a temple secretly. However, when Sudipti asked Ritesh to formally marry him, he refused arguing if he married her, his mother, Anita Devi would commit suicide.

Feeling cheated, Sudipti, who is Dalit, filed a case of sexual harassment under the ST/SC act against Ritesh in February 2017. Police picked up Ritesh from Kahalgoan on the basis of the complaint and sent him to jail.

But the story didn’t end here. Friends of the couple say Sudipti had a change of heart and visited Ritesh in jail occasionally. Weeks later, Ritesh asked her to marry him and she accepted.

Ritesh applied for marriage from jail through court about a month ago. After getting the due permissions, families of the two met and reached the court on Thursday for the wedding.

Ritesh had to go back to jail after the legal wedding as he faces charges under Sections 326 and 493 of IPC, besides the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, and his bail was rejected in the past.

Ritesh’s lawyer Abhay Bhatt said marriage was allowed as both Ritesh and Sudipti were adults but to get the groom out of jail would be more difficult.

“However, since court has already rejected the bail application, we will have to see how the case ends in favor of Ritesh and how he could be bailed out from jail,” the lawyer said. On Monday, Sudipti is expected to record her statement and the judge might decide to release Ritesh.

http://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-facebook-to-jail-and-back-jharkhand-man-marries-in-handcuffs-after-lover-files-fir/story-WRkgXHGBTNnOP0omiCTaeP.html

#MartyrsOFmarriage chattisgargh premiere. 07th May 2017. Spread the word

On SC judgment 25% Alimony to ex wife, wondering abt bank balance of women who married four times. Life’s 100% paid 😹😹

Shared from a tweet of @Deepika Narayan Bharadwaj