IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.56162 OF 2018 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT G N NANDINI W/O G.S.BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GUMMANURU VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TQ & DIST PIN-577 556 (BY MR.SRIDHAR N HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
SRI G S BASAVARAJAPPA S/O G.S.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUMMANURU VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TQ & DIST PIN-577 556 PRESENTLY R/AT 15/122, C/O H.S.BASAVARAJAPPA 190415, MEGHA NIVAS, VIDYANAGARA, HOSA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE-577 005.
(BY MR.K N LINGARAJU, ADV. FOR MR.REVANNA BELLARY, ADV.) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:14.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT JUDGE, ON IA NO.III FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE AND FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C.NO.265/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNXURE-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FAMILY JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Shridhar N. Hegde, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.N.Lingaraju for Mr.Revanna Bellary, learned counsel for the respondent.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Family Court, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been rejected.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the respondent has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage. In the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act.
4. From perusal of para 4 of the order, it is evident that the Family Court merely by placing reliance on the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent has rejected the application under Section 24 of the Act. The Family Court has also taken into account the fact that the petitioner is residing in the matrimonial home. No finding is recorded by the Family Court with regard to the income of the respondent nor with regard to the fact that whether or not the petitioner is in a position to maintain herself. The impugned order is perfunctory and has been passed in a casual and cavalier manner without application of mind.
The same suffers from the vice of non application of mind. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. No cogent reasons have been assigned by the Family Court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act.
5. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court to decide the application afresh in the light of the observations made in this order by a speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS