SOUNDARYA GAYATRI PINAGAPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 17.7.2019 passed in M.C. No.1082/2017.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife vehemently contended that before acceptance of affidavits dated 12.7.2019 and 15.7.2019 filed by the respondent-husband, petitioner-wife has not been provided ample opportunity. Perusal of the order sheet it is evident that for the affidavit dated 12.7.2019, petitioner herein was given opportunity but the same has not been availed. Insofar as affidavit dated 15.7.2019, petitioner herein has not been provided opportunity and acceptance of both the affidavits dated 12.7.2019 and 15.7.2019 is on 17.7.2019. Thus, prima-facie petitioner herein has not been provided ample opportunity to meet the contents of the affidavit dated 12.7.2017 and 15.7.2019. During pendency of the present petition, visitation rights have been exercised with mutual consent during the period from 02.11.2019 to March 2020. Such visitation rights have not been exercised from March 2020 to this date obviously due to Covid- 19 pandemic. Having regard to the fact that petitioner - wife was not provided ample opportunity before acceptance of affidavits dated 12.7.2019 and 15.7.2019, Family Court has erred in accepting aforesaid affidavits dated 12.7.2019 and 15.7.2019 and directing the petitioner-wife to deposit exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Cost portion of the order dated 17.7.2019 stands quashed.

(3.) Insofar as interference with the acceptance of affidavits dated 12.7.2019 and 15.7.2019 is concerned, it is not appropriate for the reasons that certain mutual understanding among the parties resulted in exercise of visitation rights during the period from 02.11.2019 to March 2020.