IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.27034/2019 (GM - FC) BETWEEN SMT. PADMA R., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O YEDEYURAPPA, D/O RANGANATHA, WORKING AS EXCISE SUB INSPECTOR, EXCISE D.C.OFFICE, GADAG TQ AND DISTRICT. (BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADV.) AND SRI.YEDEYURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O R.PUTAPRUDRAPPA, R/AT MARALENAHALLI, SIRAGATE (P), WARD NO.1, TUMAKURU – 572 101.
(BY SRI.KISHAN G.S., ADV.,) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2019 PASSED BY PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT TUMKUR IN M.C.NO.237/2018 ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2 FILED BY RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT VIDE ANNEXURE – A OR MODIFIED THE SAID ORDER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Nagesh S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Kishan G.S., learned counsel for respondent.
3. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
4. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkuru, in M.C.No.237/2018, wherein an application filed by respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- as maintenance to the child.
5. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a sole contention that the petitioner is employed as Excise Sub-Inspector and she was on election duty for a period from 25.02.2019 to till last week of May, 2019. Therefore, she could not file reply to the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the impugned order has been passed without considering the stand of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the matter therefore be remanded to the Family Court and the petitioner be granted opportunity to file objections and thereafter, the Family Court be directed to decide the application submitted by the respondent afresh.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file objections and to appear and even then she has failed and therefore, the Family Court has passed the impugned order.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner who is employed as Excise Sub- Inspector was on election duty from 25.02.2019 till last week of May, 2019. Therefore the petitioner could not appear and she was not in a position to contact her counsel and to file reply. The impugned order has been passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner to file objections.
9. In the facts situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned order and to direct the petitioner to file objections to the application filed by the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order passed today. Thereafter, the Family Court is directed to decide the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the objections if any.
10. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
The order dated 03.06.2019 is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj