Karnataka High Court
S D Manjunath vs Niveditha (Nethu) on 27 July, 2010
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TEES THE 27%" DAY OF JULY 2010
PRESENT: "
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.v.SHYLENDRA'_:i{U{MA:§' _
AND
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE «
M.F.A. NO. 5793
BETWEEN:
S.D.MANJUNATH
AGED 40 YEARS _
S/0 S.C.DI-IANANJAYA __ ,
RESIDENT OF CHINNAPPA V
COMPOND, 13,H.R0_AD;._' " _ - A
TIPTLER. : " "-.'.'.-.APPELLAN"I'
[BY SR1. G;
AND
1.
_ -AGED '1o_ YE-ARSA.
PRESENTLY ;5 YEARS
» _ J§,?OA'.IH:.S'1\EA
'--._;PmSENTLY 11 YEARS
MASTER SHABARISH
AGED 4 YEARS
~ PRESENTLY QYEARS
E CHILDREN OF S.D.1\/IANJUNATHA
LAND SAVITHA AND REPRESENTED BY
~ '- SMT.HEMAVATHI
AGED 55 YEARS, [GRAND MOTHER)
NO.33/1, 3RD CROSS. B T S ROAD.
WILSON GARDEN.
BANGALORE ~ 560027 RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA FILED U/ S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE 29.07.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.224/2005 ON THE El ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAM1L'{m__CO{lI3'I',V BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE s-UIT" _ U/FOR MAINTENANCE OF' 3 MINOR CHILDRE__NLu._ V ' THIS MFA COMING ON FOR SHYLENDRA KUMAR. J ., DELIVERED FOLLOW J U D G This appeal ._ ,l,.9(,.1] oflllthe Family Court Act by the first /2005 on the file of l3:'1'incipal Judge, Family Court. Bangaiorye, theiffaitliier 3 minor children who were the said suit represented by their maternal._pgrand. rn.oth'e--rl:"who was also taking care of them ed'u.c:atingll'them, is for the purpose of getting over judgment and decree passed by the court below awardviiilg.an.l.,;'amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, each, in fay4Cur"----l:pOf' "three plaintiffs towards their maintenance tfrwom date of the suit till they attain majority.
2. However, the appeal which is presented with a delay of 177 days, for condonation of which, an application Misc.Cv1.7912/2010 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking for condonation V of delay and a further the application Misc.Cvl.79 14/ 20 Ll 0 seeking stay of the judgment decree, has not made much progress thoug_h;j'has_* _ listed before the Court on a goodgppnurnb.-er"'o-ffoccas«io1is" 2 including an order passed on the Judge of this Court permittving the» appealvllwhich..'3was presented as Regularilirst to be "converted into an Miscellaneous First' 'Appeal V A}
4. But noticed certain things on order as under:
1 _ 'Shankar, learned counsel appearing for 'ctheappellant neither knows the. facts 'of "case. nor is conversant with the legal Vpirovisions which are relevant for V» _§ the purpose of conducting the appeal.
_ "We find this position reflects a very state of affairs in the legal profession ' . an'd.,_ir1.n1atters involving lives and the day to day*7l_iv"ing of parties, arising as a family dispute before courts, though the legislature " had taken care to provide for suitable .__ statutory provisions not to make appearance of lawyers as a matter of right, that provision having been diluted, courts have as a matter of course allowed lawyers to appear to plead the cause of the litigants who are parties in family disputes of the present nature.
3. We find that the appeal is by the father who had failed and neglected to maintain his three minor children after unnatural death M X'-
and in the profession who alone can handle such matters involving family disputes.
14. However, keeping that option open:
permit the present Advocate appearing'foif~V~._,__f the appellant to place before the court the "
details of maintenance that the _app.el~larit has paid in favour of his n'1'inor¥, children hitherto and also to de*posit..-*a *sum'- off-.___ Rs.l{),O00/- by way of. litigation. cost payable to the respondents "to-._.demonst.rate A ..b0rt;:t fides of the appellant. "
15. The e.:/labels'-._placed" "and deposit to be made wit--hin a time from today. * c i c
16. Listl'j;:j.lt'hisl--. l-for.....l.7orders on 26.7€;20"l.Q:."3..5;'-2 " 4.; " . This it ed by the order dated 26.7.2()lli~0tl§ as lundléjrt V "when this appeal was called out in the V Court hal'l'it...was sought to be presented by Sri.G;'S_hankar, learned counsel who has _ llledivakalath.
hi . 'j__Then to our understanding the tenor of submission of Sri.G.Shankar was, that there ~~ has been a settlement between the parties in the suit, subsequent to passing of decree by the trial Court and in the light of the said development, the present appeal is filed on behalf of the appellant only for the purpose of, issue of notice to the respondents so that once respondents appear before this Court the settlement that has already been reached between the appellant and respondents can be recorded etc. Therefore, so far the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.6,06,l80/~ (Rupees six lakhs six thousand, one hundred H eighty only) The learned counsel [for "the appellant, * , having refused to make any submissions- on the merits of the appeal but "on they, other 0 hand having insisted' _o'n_ issue of no_tic..;e...t,q the respondents only Vfoi'» the puivposet of recording a settlement....e'tc_. 'in this._appeal and as these deVelop_ments..were not borne out on record, we 'werei__n':1otV inclined to act on such submissionmavnd as not"'all'-slujolmissions made by, .Sri.G.S'hanl:ar, 'learned, counsel for the appellant were?Very"intelligible to us, we directed' -'1lear.ne_d'~. _counsel_ to place before the court ;j_suel1 .submissions' in writing and for"whie:h the"--learned counsel was enabled'vby__provi.ding two blue sheets. is l\/latterf'\*.fas._Tlpassed over for such purp"o.se.V -Wliendthe matter is taken up _,j' 'again, 'w.hi'le S'ri.G.Shankar who had made s,_ubmission'v~---in~' the morning session is not a'u,ail4a'o._le, Sri.Sangamesh, counsel claiming . t'-:\_be"the-colleague of Sri.G.Shankar appears « and..___has" placed before the court a memo reading as under, said to be signed by one fI$ri.D"ivya Kumar, another colleague of " Sri.G.Shankar:
"The appellant has instructed the Counsel' that subsequent to Judgment dated 29.7.2009 In O.S.No. 224/2005 the matter between the Appellant and the Respondent was settled amicably and as part of settlement. The appellant has paid the whole arrears of maintenance and he requests this Hon'ble Court to parties have settled the matter subsequent to the judgment and decree and therefore, the endeavotiryof the present appellant through this appeal _ such developments to the noticeyypof' this"-». presence of the respondents andtg come and report settlementbefore Court;
6. If the thevvbmxatter by themselves, we__do implement that sett1eme:ntA:.1'in_'V But that will not maltei merits of this appeal whiclris the other hand, we find that survives for examination for corifeoting the .__V]'t1dgr1V'i.ent and decree in this appeal due » possible error or illegality in it as the parties are H fllsatisfied either with the judgment and d<§&:r¢et1§as;"sed by the court below or they have resolved 2 Althea matter themselves without the intervention of the A"§Conrt. If so further interventions of the court is best avoided.
'7. But unfortunately, learned counsel apart from making oral submissions and filing a memo. has not $/
8. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as having become infructuous in View of the submission of the learned counsei for the appeliant, that the parties have settled the matter amongst themselves. Conseqiieritly, the applications Misc. Cvl.79 1 2/ 20 1 O __ - ff: .. . condonation of delay and Misc.Cvl..7_914-/'20'i:f):vflied it" it staying the judgment and decree':.ur:'def9 dismissed.
sd/.:
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE V