IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1313 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
MR. SH SHRIKANT SABOO S/O MOHANLAL SABOO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.A-19, NAKA MADAR AJMER-605001, RAJASTHAN.
(By Mr. AMIT MANDGI, ADV.,) AND:
MRS. MEGHNA SABOO W/O SHRIKANT SABOO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.A-303 BRIGADE PALM SPRINGS APARTMENTS J P NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU-560078 ALSO AT 1005/1006, VANDANA APARTMENTS 22/1, ALIPORE ROAD NEW ALIPORE KOLKATA-700027, WEST BENGAL.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT (By Mr. VINOD KUMAR M, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER OF MAINTENANCE DATED 1.12.2018 ON I.A.NO.4 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING M.C. NO. 2533/2016 BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BANGALORE AT ANNEX- A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 25,000/- TOWARDS INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO THE RESPONDENT FROM DATE OF APPLICATION TILL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION AND FURTHER DIRECTION TO PAY THE ENTIRE MEDICAL, EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES AND HOUSE RENT OF THE RESPONDENT AND CHILDREN SUBJECT TO PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL BILLS / RECEIPTS BY THE RESPONDENT FROM THIS YEAR TILL DISPOSAL OF THE CASE & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Amit mandgi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vinod Kumar.M, learned Special counsel for respondent Nos.1.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of 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 01.12.2018 passed by the 5th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru by which the respondent has been awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of maintenance per month and a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for maintenance of the two children from the date of application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a similar contention that the impugned order is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non application of mind inasmuch as the family court has not recorded any finding with regard to income of the petitioner and has not assigned any reasons with regard to awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- each towards maintenance to respondent No.1 and children. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the family court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the family court has not recorded any finding with regard to the income of the petitioner. Similarly, the family court has not assigned any reasons for awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. by way of maintenance to respondent No.1 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The impugned order therefore suffers from the vice of non application of mind and is cryptic. It is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted to family court to decide the application afresh by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state, that the amount deposited by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 01.12.2018 shall be paid to the respondents which may be adjusted by the family court while passing an order afresh.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS