IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.50307 OF 2014 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT. A.C.LALITHA W/O G. HAREESH AND D/O LATE A.K. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT: NO.7, S.K. LANE, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BANGALORE 560004. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND 1. SRI. G. HAREESH S/O LATE M.G.NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS MECHANIC DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION R.V. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 560059 2. THE PRINCIPAL R.V. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 560059 ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt. T.R.RAJESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-ABSENT SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.R.ANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.17.7.14, MADE BY THE LEARNED PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN OS.NO.292/13, ON HIS FILE VIDE ANN-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1. Sri.Somashekar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 17.07.2014 by which the trial Court has rejected the application for impleadment of respondent No.2, who happens to be the employer of respondent No.1.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had filed proceeding against respondent No.1 seeking enhancement of maintenance. In the aforesaid proceeding, the petitioner filed an application for impleadment of respondent No.2, who is the employer of respondent No.1. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Family Court by order dated 17.07.2014. In the aforesaid factual background this petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is neither proper nor necessary party in the lis which is husband and wife.
5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
6. This writ petition is pending before this Court since 2014, in which no interim order has been passed. The proceeding was instituted by the petitioner in the year 2013. By now the proceedings must have been concluded. Therefore, I am not inclined to adjudicate the validity of the impugned order at this point of time. In case, the proceedings are still pending before the Family Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Family Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.