IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.28973/2017 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI SHANKAR KULAL S S/O LATE SHEENAPPA MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1516, 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, MARIYAPPANA PALYA, BANGALORE-560 021 (BY SRI. PRAVEEN HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
SMT. A GIRIJA W/O SHANKAR KULAL AND D/O LATE ANANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO-3586/A, 2ND CROSS, B BLOCK, SUBRAMANYANAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.10.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BANGALROE, IN EX.PETITION NO.100/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.10.2016 passed in Ex. Petition No.100/2016 as at Annexure-E to the petition.
2. The petitioner herein is also the petitioner in M.C.No.2156/2013 wherein at the instance of the respondent herein an order for maintenance is passed. The respondent thereafter levied the execution petition in No.100/2016. In the said proceedings, the Executing Court through the order dated 06.10.2016 has ordered for attachment of one-third of the salary drawn by the petitioner herein to recover the unpaid maintenance amount. The said order is assailed in this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the maintenance as ordered in the said proceedings is for the respondent as also the son of the parties. At this point in time, the son has attained the age of majority and therefore the payment of maintenance would not arise. It is his further contention that the Executing Court without opportunity ought not to have passed the order for attachment and therefore, the order calls for interference.
4. Though contentions are urged to assail the order dated 06.10.2016, it is not in dispute that the order passed in M.C.No.2156/2013 granting the maintenance has not been assailed in accordance with law. If that be the position, the Executing Court is left with no other option, but to proceed with the execution in accordance with law.
5. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner assails the order by which the maintenance is granted, any contention to that effect in the execution proceedings or in this petition would not arise. Hence, the order impugned dated 06.10.2016 does not call for interference.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms