(D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and K.M. Joseph, JJ.)
Nilanjan Bhattacharya _______________________________ Petitioner;
v.
State of Karnataka and Others _____________________ Respondent(s).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7146/2020, decided on July 29, 2020
(With I.R. and IA No. 50643/2020-Exemption From Filing C/c of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 50645/2020-Exemption From Filing Affidavit and IA No. 50642/2020-Appropriate Orders/Directions and IA No. 50641/2020-Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7146/2020; WPHC No. 93/2019; IA No. 50643/2020; IA No. 50645/2020; IA No. 50642/2020; and IA No. 50641/2020
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The office report indicates that the second respondent, who is the mother of the minor child, has been served through email.
2. Having regard to the nature of the case, we are of the view that due service should be effected afresh on the second respondent. Accordingly, we direct that fresh notice shall issue to the second respondent, returnable on 24 August 2020. The service of notice shall be effected on the second respondent through the SHO of the concerned police station.
3. Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that until the decision of the High Court, the second respondent was permitting the child to converse with the petitioner everyday through video conferencing, but this has been stopped after the decision of the High Court. Mr. Jauhar submits that even a brief call of fifteen minutes will suffice.
4. As an ad interim measure, we direct the second respondent to allow the petitioner to engage with the child through video conferencing on every alternate day for a period of about fifteen minutes.
———
