IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS. 31820-31822 OF 2019(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
K GOVINDAPPA, S/O LATE KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, SOLLAPURA VILLAGE & POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT – 577550.
(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR G H, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. NETHRAVATHI, W/O GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT TALIKATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 526.
(BY SRI. G R SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITRADURGA, ON I.A.NO.1,2 & 3 IN EX.CASE NO.117/2017 VIDE ANNX-A, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.1,2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner-husband being the judgment debtor in Execution No.117/2017 filed by the respondent-wife is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 09.04.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby his applications in I.As. 1 & 2 for selling the landed property in question having been dismissed, respondent’s application in I.A.3 filed under Order XXI Rule 48(a) r/w Sec.151 of CPC, 1908 has been allowed and thereby his salary accruing due has been attached. After service of notice, the respondent has entered appearance through her counsel and opposes the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) the matter having been heard for sometime on 18.09.2019, an adjournment was obtained by the petitioner to show his bona fide by making payment to his poor wife and also to make a statement if he was ready & willing to take her back to the matrimonial home; both the parties were directed to be present before the Court on 25.09.2019 and accordingly only the respondent-wife was present before the Court but the petitioner has chosen to remain absent; however, a cost of Rs.500/- imposed on 18.09.2019 has been paid now by the counsel fro the petitioner; on 25.09.2019 the petitioner chose not to appear before the Court; even today he has done the same; this culpable conduct of the petitioner, a Government School Teacher disentitles him to grant of any discretionary relief at the hands of writ court; and (b) petitioner is stated to be employed as a teacher in a Government Primary School at Sollapura in Chitradurga District and drawing monthly salary of Rs.42,102/-; in respondent’s maintenance suit in O.S.No.42/2002 the decree was granted on 28.08.2007 and petitioner’s appeal against the same in R.A.No.49/2007 was dismissed on 03.06.2011; the decree is put in Execution No.117/2017; the poor respondent- lady who admittedly happens to be the wife of petitioner has nothing to fall back upon; therefore the impugned order directing attachment of the salary of the petitioner is directed by the Executing Court so that this poor lady may hold her body & soul together; granting indulgence in such matters would work out enormous injustice to the hapless respondent.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- which the Executing Court shall recover from the petitioner and pay it to the respondent.
Regardless of the text and nature of the impugned order as rightly argued by the counsel for the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the Executing Court to decide in its wisdom and discretion whether the petitioner should be permitted to alienate or encumber the subject land ad measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.9/1, Devara- Hosahalli village, Ramagiri Hobli, Holalkere Taluk so that the decreetal amount would reach the hands of the decree holder.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/