IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28544/2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.MANJUNATH.H.B, S/O.BASAPPA HADAPAD, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT #48/8-2, BADAMI BANASHANKARI NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, SREE KANTESWARA TEMPLE STREET, VENKATAPURA,KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 034.
NOW RESIDING AT #321/5, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, VENKATAPURA EXTENSION, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 034.
2. SMT.DEEPA.C.H, W/O.SRI MANJUNATH.H.B, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT #53/12 (F-1), SREE THEERTHA APARTMENT, 4TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 055. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SRIDHAR.A.G, ADVOCATE FOR P.NO.1; SRI.VINOD KUMAR.R.S, ADVOCATE FOR P.NO.2) AND:
NIL ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNX-A, DATED 28.06.2019 IN M.C.NO.1199/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, ON I.A. U/S 13B(2) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC BY ALLOWING THE SAME.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Sridhar.A.G, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1. Sri.Vinod Kumar., learned counsel for the petitioner No.2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, 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 28.06.2019 passed by the V Addl. Principal Family Court, by which, the Family Court has refused to waive off the mandatory requirement of six months for dissolution of marriage under Section 16-B of Hindu Marriage Act.
4. When a query was put to the parties, the parties submitted that their marriage has been irreparably broken out and it is not possible for them to live together. It is further submitted that they have arrived at an amicable settlement, by which, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- has been already received by the Petitioner No.2. It is further submitted that today, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of D.D on account of permanent alimony has been paid to Petitioner no.2 today. Out of the wedlock, male child is born, whose custody will remain with Petitioner No.2. The Petitioner No.1 further stated that he shall deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of D.D before the Family Court before drawing up of the decree.
5. In view of submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties that it is not possible for them to live together and their marriage is irretrievably broken down and taking into consideration the settlement between them, I deem it appropriate to quash the order.
6. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner No.1 is a free-lance C.A, whereas Petitioner No.2 is a house-wife and is an M.B.A. I deem it appropriate to waive off the mandatory period of six months for dissolution of marriage.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the mandatory period of six months is waived of. It is needless to state that the gold items shall be handed over by Petitioner No.1 to Petitioner No.2 before the Family Court. The Family Court is directed to draw the decree after compliance of all the formalities as afore said, namely, payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to Petitioner No.2 by way of D.D and return of the gold jewellery.
Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV