IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.9681 OF 2016 & 14964 OF 2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT N VIJAYAKUMARI W/O R PRABHAKARA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO 31, 1ST CROSS THYAGARAJANAGAR BENGALURU – 560019.
(By SMT BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
SRI R PRABHAKARA S/O N RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR CIVIL BRANCH M S RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING GOKULA BENGALURU – 560054.
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 constitution of India, praying to direct to modify the order of the V Addl. Prl. Family Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru dated 22.01.2016 passed on I.A. I and II in M.C. 1931/2005 C/w M.C.112/2007 awarding Interim Maintenance and Litigation expenses at Annex-Q, and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Smt.Bhushani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in M.C.No.1931/2005 c/w.M.C.No.112/2007 dated 22.01.2016 passed by the V Additional Principal Family Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, by which, application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) was partly allowed and the petitioner was granted interim maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month from October 2005 and Rs.14,000/- per month from December 2009 pending disposal of the petition and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded to the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings pending before the Family Court has been concluded in the year 2017 and being aggrieved, the respondent has filed MFA Nos.2464/2017 and 2465/2017, which are pending consideration before this court. However, she submits that the petitioner is still entitled to challenge the validity of the order dated 22.01.2016.
5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the interim order dated 22.01.2016 passed on an application under Section 24 of the Act by the Family Court during the pendency of the main proceeding, i.e., M.C.No.1931/2005. The aforesaid case has already been decided by the Family Court admittedly in the year 2017 and against the aforesaid order, the respondent has filed the miscellaneous first appeals before this Court. Therefore, order impugned in these petitions merges with the final order which has been passed as it is well settled in law that life of an interim order is co- terminus with the main proceedings. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions. However, it will be open to the petitioner is so advised to make an appropriate application seeking enhancement in an appeal which has been filed by the respondent.
6. With the aforesaid liberty, Petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV