IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P. Nos.2365 OF 2019 & 5382 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
MR. SURESH @ DAVID PRASANNAKUMAR SON OF LATE A RAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.159, THIRD FLOOR 2ND CROSS, NEAR MILK COLONEY GROUND MILK COLONY MALLESHWARA WEST BENGALURU-560054.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGESH S, ADV.) AND:
SMT. AMALORE PAVI MARY W/O SURESH @ DAVID PRASANNAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.16, 18TH ‘B’ CROSS BANDAPPA GARDEN MUTHYALANAGAR GOKUL EXTENSION BENGALURU-560054.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. AMALORE PAVI MARY-C/R, PARTY-IN-PERSON) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN MC.NO.1177/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN MC NO.1177/2011 BY ALLOWING I.A.NO.5 AND 26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr.Nagesh S., learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Amalore Pavi Mary, Party-in-person.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the validity of the order dated 07.12.2018, by which, the trial Court has partly allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Sections 36 and 43 of Divorce Act, 1869 and has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. towards interim maintenance to the respondent and her daughter from the date of filing of the interlocutory application i.e., 23rd November 2013.
3. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the aforesaid order on the following grounds:
(i) that the petitioner has spent more than Rs.15,00,000/- towards treatment of her daughter;
(ii) that the respondent along with her daughter did not turn up in the proceedings for maintenance from the year 2013 till 2018 and at the stage, when the proceedings were fixed for delivery of judgment, the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance; and (iii) that the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1/wife is working has not been considered by the trial Court.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the impugned order dated 07.12.2018.
5. From the perusal of the order, it is evident that the petitioner nowhere has raised such submissions and therefore, the trial Court has rightly not considered the aforesaid submission. The trial Court on the basis of the materials available on record has recorded a finding that the petitioner is a man of sufficient means and therefore has directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance from the date of filing of the interlocutory application i.e. 23rd November 2013.
6. The order passed by the Trial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423]. In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. In the result, the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* ct:bms