IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.15952 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri.Chandrashekara B.T, S/o late Thimmappa.B.T, Aged about 35 years, R/at No.7, Gangotri Avenue, Shivneri Colony, Nashik – 422 010.
(By Sri.H.Mallan Goud, Advocate) AND:
Smt.Rajini H.J, W/o B.T.Chandrashekara, R/at No.32, 4th Floor, Kempayya Block, 7th Cross, Lower Palace Q Rehids, Sadashivanagara, Bengaluru – 560 003.
... Petitioner ... Respondent (By Smt.Rajini H.J, party-in-person - C/R) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 21.03.2019 on I.A.No.5 under M.C.1100/2015 passed by Principal Family Court at Bengaluru which is produced at Annexure- A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.H.Mallan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.H.J.Rajini, caveator-respondent/party-in- person.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and caveator-respondent/party-in-person, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.03.2019 passed by the Family Court, Bengaluru by which a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to the respondent and minor child.
4. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that admittedly the parties got married on 13.11.2011. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage on 07.03.2015. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Marketing Manager and his take home salary is Rs.1,38,666/- per month. It is also not in dispute that in a proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the respondent-wife has been awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- and by impugned order dated 21.03.2019, the respondent has been awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance on an application made by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has capacity to earn as she is a civil engineer. While inviting the attention of this Court to the cross-examination, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was employed 3-4 years ago and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month.
6. On the other hand, party-in-person has submitted that she requires a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month awarded in the proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as Hindu Marriage Act for maintaining herself and child, who is aged about six years. It is further submitted that respondent is required to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month as rent in respect of the apartment and has to bear the expenses in respect of a school going child, who is aged about six years.
7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and have perused the records. Admittedly, the take home salary of the petitioner is Rs.1,38,666/- per month. There is no material on record to show that respondent is employed or has any source of income. The respondent is getting a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month from both the proceedings namely, under the Hindu Marriage Act as well as under the provisions the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent is required to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month as rent to the apartment in which she is staying with the child and also required to bear the expenses of a child, who is aged about six years and who goes to school. For the aforementioned reasons and taking into account the salary of the petitioner, the amount awarded by the Family Court, Benglauru cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, the impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423]. In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly, the same fails.
10. However, the attention of this Court is invited to the Rules framed by this Court namely, Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005, wherein, it is provided that the matrimonial dispute should be decided within a period of one year. Since the proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the Family Court, Benglauru since 2015, the Family Court, Bengaluru shall make an endeavor to conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-