IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.3715 OF 2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT. NITU AGED AOBUT 35 YEARS, W/O M. MUKESH, R/AT NO.24/8, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, SARAKKI MARKET, INDIRAGANDHI CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 078. … PETITIONER (By Smt. RAMA R. IYER, ADV.) AND:
M. MUKESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O MATHURA DAS, R/AT NO.35/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE-560 003.
… RESPONDENT (By Mr. MANJUNATH B.R. ADV.) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 27.3.2014 in E.P.107/2013 passed by and on the file of V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore at Annex-C and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Smt.Rama R. Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Manjunath B.R., learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 02.01.2016 passed by the Executing Court by which the Executing Court has directed attachment of movables of the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been passed in favour of the respondent – husband. Thereupon, the respondent initiated the proceeding for execution of the aforesaid decree. The Executing Court, by the impugned order dated 02.01.2016, has directed issuance of attachment of movables of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no movables to be attached. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent infact has submitted the details of movables owned by the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Executing Court reads as under:
“This court after hearing on both the sides over ruled the objections filed by the JDr by observing that there is no substance in the objections raised by her.”
6. Thus, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the objections preferred by the petitioner except by stating that there is no substance in the objections. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic and cavalier manner without assigning any reasons. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The matter is referred to the Trial Court to consider the objections after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV CT:MS