IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.29206 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI.SANTHOSH REDDY, S/O.SRI.VENUGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.84, MYLSANDRA, BEGUR POST, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU -560 068. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.HARISH.H.V, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT.LAVANYA, W/O.SRI.SANTHOSH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.943, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, NEW MICO LAYOUT, NEAR DURGA TAILOR, BOMMANHALLI, BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:4.7.2019 ISSUING FLW, IN PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125[3] OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR RECOVERY OF INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO THE RESPONDENT, IN CRL.MISC NO.28/2018 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Harish.H.V, learned counsel for the petitioner.
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 Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia interalia assailed the validity of the order dated 04.07.2019, by which, the Family Court has re-issued the fine levy warrant against the respondent.
4. Facts leading to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that admittedly, under an order passed by the Family Court, the petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m., as maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner has not paid the amount of maintenance and is in arrears of amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.13,68,300/-. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the Additional Principal Judge on 30.03.2019 and on 04.07.2019. The ordersheet reads as under:
done.
“30.03.2019 Petr. ab. Respt. ab.
Re-issue FLW against the respt, if needful is Call by 04.07.2019.
04.07.2019 Petr. & Adv. pr. Respt. ab.
Re-issue FLW against the respondent if needful is done.
Call on by 09.08.2019.”
Thus, the Court was left with no option to issue the fine- levy warrant.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is in arrears of maintenance and has not paid the amount of maintenance. In the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, the Family Court is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
6. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the petition. Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV