CHETHANA KUMBLE Vs. KUMAR JAHAGIRDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE rejection of the petitioner's application under Order VII, Rule 11 readwith Section 151 CPC by Order dated 11. 11. 2007 in M. C. No. 1195/98 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, bangalore, has resulted in this petition invoking Article 227 of the constitution of India.

(2.) THE threshold contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent over the maintainability of the writ petition deserves to be rejected, since the petitioner can invoke the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, calling in question the order impugned of the Family court.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated facts are that a female child by name Kum. Aaruni was born on 7. 12. 1994 to the petitioner from out of the wedlock between the parties and on 11. 12. 1998, a joint petition filed invoking Section 13b of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for short 'act' for a decree of divorce by mutual consent and child's custody in terms of the compromise, was accordingly allowed by order dated 12. 4. 1999 of the Family Court. The arrangement over the custody of the child and visitation rights having led to certain alleged difficulties in its implementation, perhaps, impelled the parties to file separate application under Section 26 of the Act for custody. The rejection of the petitioner's application and allowing respondent's application for custody of the child, by Order dated 20,4. 2002 when carried in two Appeals viz. , MFA 2940/02 and MFA 2939/02, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeals by Order dated 27. 1. 2003 reversed the order of the Family Court and accordingly, allowed the petitioner's application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the respondent ex-husband. That order when questioned in CA No. 619 of 2004 and 620 of 2004 before the Apex Court, was confirmed by Order dated 29. 1. 2004, subject to certain modifications.