N RUKMINI Vs. P PUTTASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this petition has sought for quashing/ setting-aside the order dated 20th September, 2008 passed by the Additional civil Judge (Senior Division), Hassan Vide Annexure-D on the I. A. filed by the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure in M. C. No. 22/2004 and allow the said application.

(2.) THE petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 20th May, 1994 as per the Hindu rites at shimoga and out of the said wedlock, petitioner and respondent have two children by name Master Bharath and Kumari Shreyu, who are now aged about 13 and 10 years respectively. The case of petitioner is that, she is working as a 'woman constable' at Hassan and respondent is working as an 'announcer' at AIR at Akashavani, Hassan and both of them are residing presently together at Akashavani quarters, Hassan and their relationship has so far been harmonious and that, petitioner is a dutiful and faithful wife and mother and taking good care of the respondent and their children. There has been no grievance or complaint against the petitioner by the respondent, but unfortunately, beyond their capacity, it is alleged by the respondent-husband that, petitioner-wife is suffering from 'paranoid Schizophrenia' and therefore, filed the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M. C. No. 22/2004 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hassan. Petitioner being a courageous and-respectable woman, working in the police force as constable, taking as a challenge, is seriously contesting the petition filed by respondent. Therefore, in order to find out the truth and reality of the allegations made against the petitioner, she was constrained to file the application under Order 26, Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of Civil procedure Code in M. C. No. 22/2004 seeking expert's second opinion regarding the alleged disease as to whether she is suffering from 'paranoid schizophrenia' or not. The application filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hassan on 20th September, 2008 and the Trial Court rejected the application filed by petitioner on the ground that, it is not necessary and there is no need to take second opinion from another Psychiatrist on the ground that, PW3-Dr. Arunachalaaih, has been working as a Psychiatrist since 25 years in various places and was then working in S. C. Hospital, Hassan and that, there are no personal allegations as such made against the said PW3 by respondent (Petitioner herein ). Petitioner being seriously aggrieved by the impugned order on LA. rejecting the request of petitioner to get the second opinion from an expert at NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, is constrained to redress her grievance by presenting the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent.