IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.16547 OF 2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JYOTHI, W/O SUGURESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O:#26 (OPP. BUILDING OF 26/1), 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, S.K.GARDEN, BANGALORE-560045.
2. KUM. SRAJANA, D/O SRI SUGURESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, REP. BY MOTHER/PETITIONER NO.1, R/O:#26 (OPP. BUILDING OF 26/1), 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, S.K.GARDEN, BANGALORE-560045.
(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
SRI SUGURESHWAR, S/O:RACHOTI SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC:RTD. SAILOR, ... PETITIONERS INDIAN NAVY, R/O:C/O-DR.LATE BABURAO, AYURVEDIC CANCER HOSPITAL BUILDING, OPP. CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL SCHOOL, GUBBI COLONY, GULBARGA-585104.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAGARAJ S KATHIMANI, ADV.(ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.NO. 351/2014 [ANNEX-E] BY AWARDING THE MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 & ENHANCING THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT TO PETITIONER NO.2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt.Anupama Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Family Court, by which, the application filed by the first petitioner who is wife of the respondent seeking maintenance has been rejected.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are:
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.12.2005. Out of the wedlock, on 06.02.2009 a daughter was born. It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of July 2012, the respondent left the company of the first petitioner and their daughter and deserted them. The first petitioner filed a petition seeking maintenance before the Family Court and also filed an application on 31.03.2015 seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court passed an order on 01.10.2015 rejecting the claim of petitioner No.1 and granted a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m., by way of maintenance to petitioner No.2. In the aforesaid facts and background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Family Court has not assigned any valid and cogent reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.1.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has carefully gone through the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Family Court.
6. From the perusal of the order, it is evident that the Family Court has not assigned any cogent and valid reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioners for grant of interim maintenance to petitioner No.1/wife. The Family Court held that the petitioner No.1/wife has not signed the terms of the settlement and thereafter without assigning any reasons has held that petitioner No.2 alone is entitled to maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- p.m. The impugned order insofar as rejection of claim of the petitioner No.1/wife for grant of maintenance is quashed and set aside.
7. The Family Court is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioners for grant of interim maintenance by a speaking order, after hearing the parties within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today. Since the proceedings for grant of maintenance is pending since 2014, the Family Court will make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* ct:bms