IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.39633/2018 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
NELLIRA D. KRUPA SUBBAIAH S/O. N. A. DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT K. BADAGA VILLAGE KUTTA POST, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADV., FOR SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADV.) AND SMT. SULLIMADA K. PAVITHRA @ POORNIMA W/O. N. D. KRUPA D/O. SULLIMADA D. KAVERAPPA @ VASANTHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT KANOOR NIDUGUMBA VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 218.
(BY SRI. SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADV., FOR SRI. SANJANTI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADV.) ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.07.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN MC No.58 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIRAJAPET AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Shravanth Arya Tandra, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Family Court by which the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed and a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. has been awarded by way of maintenance.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a petition in M.C.No.58/2016 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the year 2016. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, particularly paragraph-4, it is evident that the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.89,500/- p.m. and the petitioner is getting a net salary of Rs.44,500/- p.m.
5. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has to maintain himself, as well as his old and ailing parents, the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, by any stretch of imagination, can be said to be excessive or exorbitant.
6. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, no case for interference has been made out in the present petition. However, at this stage, attention of the Family Court be invited to the provisions contained in Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Sub-ordinate Courts) Rules 2005, which provides that the matrimonial dispute should be decided within a period of one year.
8. In view of the provisions contained in the Rules, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
9. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RD