Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 713 (KAR)

Pooja Hanumanthappa W/o. Sri. Trishul Devanga v. Trishul Ramesh Devanga S/o. Sri. Ramesh Devanga

2020-03-12

S.G.PANDIT

body2020
ORDER : 1. Respondent/wife in M.C.No.5199/2015 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 07.02.2019 whereby I.A.No.10 filed by the petitioner/husband under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC to summon the call details is allowed. 2. Petitioner and respondent herein are legally wedded husband and wife. The petitioner/husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage of respondent with the respondent. 3. Petitioner/husband filed an application I.A.No.10 under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC seeking to summon the call location details of the respondent’s mobile for the period from 01.11.2015 till 01.06.2018, which application is allowed under the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/wife is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that the Family Court committed an error in allowing the application I.A.No.10 to issue summons calling for call details of the respondent’s mobile number. It is his submission that call details are sought for, to know as to whether the respondent/wife was residing in the premises or vacated the premises at Jayanagar. It is also submitted that the petitioner/husband intends to prove by obtaining call details that she is not available at matrimonial house. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner/ husband would submit that the trial Court rightly allowed the application to summon call location details of the respondent/wife’s mobile. It is his submission that the said information is very much necessary to know as to whether the respondent/wife was residing in the tenanted house at Jayanagar to which he is paying rentals and to show that the wife was not available at matrimonial house. 7. Without going into the contentions raised by both the parties, it would appear that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/wife under the impugned order if the call details are made available. The same would facilitate the trial Court in deciding the issue involved in the suit. Moreover, it is the case of the wife that she is not using the said mobile number, but she has not denied that it is not her SIM. The same would facilitate the trial Court in deciding the issue involved in the suit. Moreover, it is the case of the wife that she is not using the said mobile number, but she has not denied that it is not her SIM. Further, as the impugned order would not in any way affect or prejudice the wife, there is no reason to find fault with the order of the trial Court. Hence, the writ petition stands rejected.