■ In re Marriage of Nadkarni, No. H032868

I.  INTRODUCTION

            The marriage of appellant Darshana Nadkarni (hereafter Darshana) and respondent Dattaprasanna Nadkarni (hereafter Datta)[1] ended in May 2005.  Since then, the parties have been involved in a child custody dispute regarding their two teenaged children.  In April 2007, Datta, who is Darshana’s former husband, accessed an email account used by Darshana and obtained copies of emails between his former wife and third persons, including her attorney.  According to Datta, the parties used the email account to communicate about their children, and he accessed the account after discovering that Darshana had left the children alone while she traveled to India.  Datta attached copies of Darshana’s emails to documents he filed in the trial court in their child custody matter. 

            Darshana, on the other hand, asserts that the email account belonged to her and was used for her personal and professional business.  She applied for and received a temporary restraining order and order to show cause under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.)[2] that ordered Datta to, among other things, to “not engage in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined such as blackmail, slander, stalking, threatening, harassing, and disturbing the peace of [Darshana] or third parties through the use of personal information accessed through [Darshana’s] email.”  Darshana sought to extend the restraining order, but after a proceeding on the order to show cause held in March 2008, the trial court dismissed her application on April 15, 2008. 

            On appeal, Darshana contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her application for a restraining order on the ground that Datta’s alleged conduct was insufficient to constitute abuse within the meaning of the DVPA.  For the reasons stated below, we find that Darshana’s application for a restraining order under the DVPA was facially sufficient.  Therefore, we will reverse the April 15, 2008 order dismissing the application for a restraining order and remand the matter for a hearing on the merits.


■ Held:

Trial court order dismissing wife's application for a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Protection Act is reversed and remanded where: 1) the allegations in the wife's application and declaration are facially sufficient for a showing of abuse within the meaning of the DVPA; and 2) the court was not required to allow oral testimony by the wife's witnesses at her DVPA proceeding, and her application for a restraining order under the DVPA was entitled to calendar preference under Family Code sec. 244.
Marriage of Nadkarni-H032868- 4/24/09 CA6
Marriage of Nadkarni-H032868- 4/24/09 CA6-PDF

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory 
Family Law Table of Contents