IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.58184 OF 2014 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT TARA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O PRAKASH, NO.120, SRINILAYA, I CROSS, I PHASE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.
... PETITIONER (By Sri. SWAMY SHIVA PRAKASH H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KRISHNAMURTHY.M.R, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND SRI.D. EKAMBARA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE H.DODDAIAH, NO.40/2, GANIGARA A GALLI, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.
…RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. S.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE -ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO.455/2013 DTD.5.12.2014 VIDE ANNEX-O.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the parties.
2. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 5.12.2014 passed by the Family Court, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.
3. A Bench of this Court while entertaining the writ petition by an ad-interim order dated 18.12.2014 had stayed the proceedings before the Family Court. The order has remained in force.
4. The impugned order reads thus:
“5.12.2014:
Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Respondent filed I.A.-6 u/sec.127 of Cr.P.C with documents.
PF paid. Petitioner counsel submitted that the respondent has to pay huge arrears of amount.
Respondent counsel prays time. Prayer is rejected and issue FLW against the respondent no.(1) as per memo call on for objections to I.A.6. call on 16.1.2015.”
5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the order is cryptic and cavalier and suffers from vice of non application of mind which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the matter is remitted to the Family Court to decide the application preferred by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order in accordance with law.
6. Office is directed to transmit copy of this order to the concerned Family Court.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.