IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.38441/2016 C/W WRIT PETITION No.29668/2013 (GM, FC) IN W.P.NO.38441/2016 BETWEEN:
SMT. REKHA W/O K.SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A B.BEERANAHALLI, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
SRI K.SHIVARAM S/O A.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.6, 10TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 054.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DTD:20.6.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON IA NO.II FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT IN M.C.NO.54/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED.
IN W.P.NO.29668/2013 BETWEEN:
SRI K.SHIVARAM S/O A.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.6, 10TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 054.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND:
SMT. REKHA W/O K.SHIVARAM, D/O SOMESHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A B.BEERANAHALLI, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:20.6.2013 PASSED IN MC.NO.54/2012 BY THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT JUDGE, SHIMOGA AS PER ANNEXURE-G.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None appears for the parties.
2. In these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 20.06.2013, by which, the Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner and has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to her minor child.
3. These petitions are pending before the Court since 2016, in which, no interim order has been passed.
4. The aforesaid order was passed in the year 2013. By now, the proceeding seeking dissolution of marriage instituted by the respondent-husband must have been terminated. In this case, as the case is still pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the Family Court to conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PB