Karnataka High Court
Shivsharnappa S/O Gurulingappa ... vs Sujata W/O Santosh Ors on 26 November, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.84698/2011 (GM-FC)
Between:
Shivsharnappa,
S/o Gurulingappa Dhuttargi,
Aged about 63 years,
Occ; Retd.Govt. Employee,
R/o Plot No.285, H.No.8-82,
Sharan Nilaya, Banashankari Colony,
Sedam Road, Jaynagar,
Gulbarga. .... Petitioner.
(By Sri Mohan Rao Kulkarni & R.H.Mathapa, Advs.)
And:
1 Sujata,
W/o Santosh,
Aged about 31 years,
Occ; Household,
Now working as Teacher,
R/o 128, NGO's Colony,
Sedam Road, Gulbarga.
2
2 Santosh,
S/o Shivasharnappa Dhuttargi,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ; Un-employed,
R/o Sidharoodh Math,
Hubli.
3 Station House Officer,
M.B.Nagar, Police Station,
Sedam Road,
Gulbarga. .... Respondents.
(By Sri K.A.Kalburgi, Adv. for R1
Sri T.Basavakumar & Umesh M.Kulkarni, Advs. For R2
R3 served)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned FLW order
passed by Family Court, Gulbarga, in Crl.EP.No.115/2001 dated
7.10.2011, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The first respondent had filed a petition in Crl.Misc.No.76/2009 seeking maintenance against her husband, the second respondent herein. The petition was allowed on 24.3.2011 by 3 the Family Court, Gulbarga (Annexure 'H') and the second respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the first respondent. Since the second respondent failed to pay the maintenance, the first respondent filed an application under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of the said amount. In the said case, the second respondent has not entered appearance. Therefore, the trial Court has issued FLW as against the second respondent.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent is disturbing the petitioner while enforcing the order of the trial Court dated 29.8.2011. It is clear that FLW was issued against the second respondent and not as against the petitioner. It is made clear that the third respondent has to enforce the FLW only against the second respondent. With these observations, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
BMM/-