IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 48067 OF 2014(GM-FC) BETWEEN:
Sri.A.G.Vishwanathaiah S/o Guruvaiah Age 70 years R/at Adugur, Modihalli Hobli Belur Taluk Hassan District-573 121. … Petitioner (By Sri.Prasanna V.R., Advocate) AND:
Smt. Anusuya W/o A.G. Vishwanathaiah Age 65 years C/o Siddegowda Hemavathi Nilaya Hemavathinagar, Hassan-573201.
Also residing at:
C/o A.V.Manjunatha Mechanical Engineer Jeevanadhi Apartments House No.405, C.V. Raman Nagar Bangalore-560026. ... Respondent (By Sri.H.T.Nataraj, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated:23.09.2014 in Execution case No.2/2013 passed by the Family Court, Hassan, true copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.09.2015 in Ex.No.2/2013 passed by the Family Court, Hassan produced as Annexure-A, whereby the Family Court has issued arrest warrant against the petitioner.
2. The parties are husband and wife. Out of the wedlock they had four children. Since 2003, they were not living together. The respondent-wife had filed Crl.Misc.No.190/2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance. The II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, by order dated 26.04.2013 has directed the petitioner-husband to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent herein within three months from the date of the petition. Further, it has directed the petitioner-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- from the date of the order on or before fifth of every month. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Family Court, Hassan. The Family Court, by order dated 03.08.2013 partly allowed the revision petition and modified the monthly maintenance to Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. That order has attained finality. The respondent herein has filed Ex.No.2/2013 for executing the order dated 03.08.2013. In Ex.No.2/2013, the Family Court, Hassan passed an order dated 23.09.2014 issuing arrest warrant against the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed maintenance petition against his sons. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan by order dated 10.05.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.45/2014 granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from May 2018. The petitioner also filed Ex. Petition before the Family Court to execute the order dated 10.05.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.45/2014. Since the petitioner has no source of income he is unable to pay the maintenance. He further submits that he has filed objections to Ex.No.2/2013 on 27.06.2014 as per Annexure-H. But the Family Court, without considering the same, has passed the arrest warrant. Hence he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri H.T.Nataraj, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not in dispute that the order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has attained finality. Since the petitioner has not paid the maintenance, the respondent has filed the Ex.Petition. The respondent has no other source of income and she is entirely depending upon the maintenance. Hence he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the parties are husband and wife and out of their wedlock they had four children. The maintenance petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Family Court, Hassan. In the revision Petition filed by the petitioner-husband, the maintenance was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. That order has attained finality. Since the petitioner has not paid the maintenance as per the order passed by the Family Court, Hassan, the respondent filed Ex.Petition.
7. The contention of the petitioner that he has also filed Ex.Petition against his sons since he has no other source of income to pay maintenance to wife cannot be a ground to allow the writ petition. When the order passed by the Family Court has attained finality. The Family Court is justified in passing the order dated 23.09.2014. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has not considered the objections filed by the petitioner and sought liberty to file application for recalling the order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file such application if it is permissible in law. If such application is filed, the same may be considered in accordance with law.
The office is directed to transfer the amount deposited before this Court to the Execution Court.
Cm/-
Sd/- JUDGE