Karnataka High Court
Vidya W/O Siddhu Hiremath vs Basavaraj S/O Rudrayya Hosmath on 14 November, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 14 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS . JUS TICE K.S .MUDAGAL
W.P.NO .109220/2017 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
1. VIDYA W/O SIDDHU HIREMA TH,
AGE : 26 YEARS , O CC: HOME MANAGEMENT,
R/O NAGASHETTIKOPPA, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI.
2. ASHOK S/O BASAVARAJ HOSAMATH,
AGE : 21 YEARS , O CC: S TUDENT,
R/O GANESHPET S HETTAR ONI,
HUBBALLI, DIS T: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRASHANT S.HOSMANI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
BASAVARAJ S/O RUDRAYYA HOSMATH,
AGE : 56 YEARS , O CC: AUTO DRIVER,
R/O : HOSMANI BUILDING,
1 S T CROSS, NEAR AYODYA NAGAR,
OLD HUBLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY ANANT P.SAVA DI, ADVOCA TE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITU TION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI TO PASS
2
ORDERS ON I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN
MISC.NO.5/2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, TH E COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard.
2. The petitioners are the children of the respondent. Respondent filed O.S.No.15/2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi against the petitioners claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioners failed to appear in the said suit and contest the same.
3. Ultimately suit came to be decreed on 03.08.2016 granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month from each of the defendants from the date of the suit till lifetime of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Misc.P.No.5/2016 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the exparte decree. 3
4. According to the petitioners they have filed I.A.2 (Annexure-E) in the said proceedings on 14.09.2016 seeking stay of the operation of the decree dated 03.08.2016. Their grievances is that, the application is not being disposed of since more than one year.
5. Sri A.P.Savadi, the learned counsel who appeared for the caveator respondent contends that the respondent could not afford to engage an advocate before the trial court and the matter was referred to the Legal Services Authority for extending the legal aid to him. He further contends that since the Hubli Taluka Legal Service Committee has not appointed an Advocate to represent the respondent, the matter is delayed.
6. If that is the case, the court could have issued direction to the Member Secretary, Taluka Legal Service Authority, Hubli Taluk or could have written to the Chairman or Member Secretary of the District Legal 4 Services Authority to look into the matter. For that reason the application cannot be kept pending for more than one year.
7. It is submitted that the respondent has filed E.P.No.8/2016 to execute the decree in O.S.No.15/2016, engaging the services of an Advocate and that matter is being listed regularly and attachment warrant is issued.
8. Both the counsel have no objection to hear Misc.P.No.5/2016 and E.P.No.8/2016 and to proceed with them simultaneously. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the submissions of both the counsel, the petition is allowed.
9. The Trial Court is directed to connect Misc.P.No.5/2016 with E.P.No.8/2016 and take up both the matters simultaneously and dispose of I.A.No.2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5
10. Till disposal of I.A.No.2, the trial court shall not execute the warrant issued against the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM/-