IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.10852/2017 (GM FC) BETWEEN JINA PRASAD JAIN S/O. JINENDRA INDRA AGE: 36 YEARS, R/O: NEAR NEW BUS STAND, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, NEAR SAHYADRI LODGING DHARMASTHALA D.K DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SACHIN B S, ADV.) AND 1. SMT. SHILPA JINA PRASAD JAIN W/O JINA PRASAD JAIN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O. C/O SHISHUPAL K. JAIN AHIMSA HOUSE, MADUMARNAD VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K DISTRICT-575001 2. JIYA JAIN S/O. SMT. SHILPA JINA PRASAD JAIN AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 3. SHOURYA JAIN S/O. SMT. SHILPA JINA PRASAD JAIN AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 R/O. C/O SHISHUPAL K. JAIN AHIMSA HOUSE, MADUMARNAD VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K DISTRICT – 575001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY R1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, R2 & R3 ARE MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY R1.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.28.1.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. IN CRL.MISC. CASE.NO.77 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri. Sachin B.S. Advocate for petitioner. None for respondents though served.
2. Heard, in this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K. Mangaluru by which an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of interim maintenance has been awarded to the respondent in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) initiated by the respondent.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner referring the order dated 23.03.2017 submitted that Bench of this court while issuing notice to the respondent had stayed the execution of the impugned order subject to the condition that petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent. It is further submitted that the order has remained in force till today. In the meanwhile, the respondent wife has filed a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) against the respondent in Mumbai and the court in Mumbai has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- as by way of maintenance. It is further submitted that in view of aforesaid subsequent development, the award of maintenance awarded to the respondent by the family court be suitably modified and writ petition be disposed off with a direction to the family court to expeditiously dispose off the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code as the same is pending since 2016.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that under the provisions of Act, a sum of Rs.4,000/- has already been awarded to the respondent, I deem it appropriate to modify the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the family court and to direct that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent by way of maintenance from the date of the order passed by the court at Mumbai under the provisions of the Act, 2005.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the order passed by the family court is modified. It is further directed that the family court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case pending before it under Section 125 of the Code within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
In view of disposal of the petition, all the pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR