IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1396 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA.C S/O CHIKKAPPA AGED BUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT UPPARPET CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
(BY MR.K.P.BHUVAN, ADV.) AND:
SMT.SUCHITHARA W/O MANJUNATHA C, D/O LATE DIWKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT:
NO.6, OFFICIAL COLONY K.R.S. BELAGOLA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438.
(BY SMT.ARCHANA MURTHY P, ADV.) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2018 PASSED IN I.A. UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES IN M.C.NO.30/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIO RCIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNAGIRI VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.K.P.Bhuvan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Archana Murthy P., learned counsel for the respondent.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed he validity of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by which the family court has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- by way of maintenance to the respondent.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised similar contention that the respondent had not sought for maintenance in her application filed under Section 24 of the Act and had only sought for the litigation expenses. However, the family court grossly erred in awarding her a sum of RS.3,000/- by way of maintenance. The aforesaid fact was not fairly disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, she submitted that the respondent be granted liberty to file an application under Section 24 of the Act afresh before the family court and the application be decided in accordance with law.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 28.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondent is granted liberty to file an application under Section 24 of the Act. Needless to state that in case such an application is filed, the family court shall decided the same by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within one month from the date of filing of such application.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS