ASHA K Vs. ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING CO PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Software Engineer by profession, working at WIPRO, Bengaluru, is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to telecast any information pertaining to the personal life of the petitioner and family members of the petitioner with respondent No.4 and his family members in their TV channel.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner got married with the respondent No.4 on 10.02.2005. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born by name Adisha, now aged about 10 years. Thereafter, in the year 2010 they had difference of opinion and respondent No.4 had gone to the extent of exploiting the petitioner both financially and mentally. Therefore, they started living separately from July 2010. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to file an application under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.3036/2010 before Principal Family Court, Bengaluru. She also filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the respondent No.4-husband from interfering in day-to-day life of the petitioner and her daughter. It is further contended that due to constant harassment and interference, the petitioner lodged police complaint before the Yeshwanthpur Police Station alleging physical and mental harassment given by respondent No.4 and his family members demanding dowry. The jurisdictional police, after registering the complaint, filed charge-sheet against respondent No.4 and subsequently he filed Crl.Misc.Petn.No.4847/2011 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court-XVI, Bengaluru, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, by an Order dated 12th October 2011, allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail subject to the condition that the fourth respondent herein shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly, he shall co-operate with the investigating officer in respect of the investigation concerning him and he shall not commit similar offences.

(3.) When things stood thus, on 28.11.2011, at 12.30 pm, petitioner's father who is the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, received an SMS from one Geetha claiming that she is from TV-9 channel and wants to talk about petitioner's daughter and around 1.00 pm, she called up through her mobile No.9008026148 stating that the fourth respondent has lodged a complaint with them that the petitioner is not permitting the fourth respondent to see the minor daughter and making several other allegations. It is further stated that the person who called from the office of the second respondent informed the petitioner's father that the fourth respondent has also given some materials in the form of video tapes to substantiate his claim relating to relationship with the petitioner and making several other allegations. She also called upon the petitioner's father to respond to the aforesaid claims made by the fourth respondent. The petitioner's father replied stating that both civil and criminal cases are pending before the Court and requested the second respondent to have a direct discussion with the lawyer to get more information about the fact that the matter is pending before the Court.