AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr.Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar
By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected I.A.Nos.12 and 13 filed by the petitioner for reopening the case for leading additional evidence and to file application for appointment of fresh Court Commissioner as well as to appoint the District Medical Board headed by the District Surgeon as Court Commissioner to examine respondent-wife.
The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. During the pendency of the matter before the Family Court, the petitioner herein himself prayed for appointment of Court Commissioner. At the request of the petitioner himself, a lady skin specialist namely Dr. Sushma in the Government Hospital, Shimoga, was appointed as Court Commissioner to examine the respondent-wife. The Court Commissioner examined the respondent and submitted the report to the Court below. The said skin specialist viz., Dr.Sushma the Court Commissioner is examined as CW.1. She is cross-examined thoroughly by the petitioner. Subsequently, when the matter is posted for arguments, I.A.Nos.12 and 13 are filed for reopening the case and to appoint District Medical Board headed by the District Surgeon as the Court Commissioner to examine the respondent and filing its report.
Report filed by the Court Commissioner is at Annexure-J, dated 6.9.2011. The Court Commissioner has answered all questions referred to her. The said lady doctor was appointed as Court Commissioner at the instance of the petitioner himself. The said lady doctor is examined before the Court and cross-examined by the petitioner thoroughly. Thus, it is not open for the petitioner to file one more application for appointing fresh Court Commissioner to examine the respondent. Merely because an adverse report is filed against the petitioner, it is not open for the petitioner to file repeated applications for the very purpose. The action of the petitioner of filing repeated applications is clearly a case of abuse of process of Court. Hence, the Court below has rightly rejected the same.
this Court does not find any error in the impugned order, inasmuch as the Court below has considered each and every aspect of the matter relating to the report given by the Court Commissioner and has rightly has concluded that there is no reason to reopen the case and to appoint fresh Court Commissioner.
Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, writ petitions fail and the same stand dismissed.