IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.59960 OF 2014 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI JOE PRATAP SINGH S/O RETNAMONI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O NO.46-A, GANAPATHI NAGAR, CHETTIKULAM, KOTTAR POST, NAGARCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU 629002 PRESENTLY AT C/O AETNA GLOBAL BENEFITS (MIDDLE EAST) LLC 28TH FLOOR, MEDIA ONE BUILDING, DUAI MEDIA CITY, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SMT. SHEELA ARUL SINGH, W/O SRI ARUL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ARUN PALACE, 52/1, GANAPATHI NAGAR, EAST STREET CHETTIKULAM JUNCTION, NAGARCOIL, TAMIL NADU- 629002 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND SMT. MARY SOPHIA. S W/O JOE PRATHAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO.22, GIRUJA’S VILLA, 1ST CROSS, CMV LAYOUT, GUDDADAHALLI, HEBBAL, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE -560032 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATISH G RAIKAR, ADVOCATE -ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD.19.7.2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE ON IA NO.II IN C.MISC.NO.25/2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. K.S.Abhijith, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the Family Court by which the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of maintenance to the respondent on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) and has further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The writ petition is pending before this Court since 2014, in which no interim order has been passed. The proceeding before the Family Court was initiated in the year 2013.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding is still pending before the Family Court.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and in view of the fact that proceeding was initiated in the year 2013, by now the proceeding might have concluded. If not, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Office is directed to transmit copy of the order passed today to the Family Court concerned.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.