Karnataka High Court
Anand vs Ramya on 9 April, 2018
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 51390 OF 2017 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O PUTTARAJU,
D.NO.707, MIG, VI CROSS,
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD,
SHARADADEVINAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADV.)
AND:
1. RAMYA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O. ANAND.
2. ISHWARYA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
D/O. ANAND,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER RAMYA.
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO.62,
VIII MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.
... RESPONDENTS
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.10.2017, PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ON I.A.NO.2 IN
O.S.NO.69/2016, ANNEXURE-E; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 9.10.2017, passed by the I Addl. Principal Family Court, Mysuru, whereby, the learned Family Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the respondents, and has restrained the petitioner from alienating the schedule property during the pendency of the suit.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were married on 26.05.2003, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. During the tenure of the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 lived with the petitioner's mother. During the wedlock, a daughter, Ishwarya, was born. However, as differences arose -3- between the couple, due to the mal-adjustment between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, eventually the couple parted their ways. Since the petitioner neglected the respondents, the respondents filed a civil suit namely O.S.No.69/2016, before the learned Family Court. Along with the suit, they filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, for restraining the petitioner from alienating the property, which initially belonged to his mother, and which has devolved down to the petitioner, as his mother has expired on 11.12.2013. The petitioner filed his objections to the temporary injunction application. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned order, the learned Family Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the respondents. Hence this petition before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that until and unless the maintenance amount is quantified by the learned -4- Family Court, the learned Family Court is not justified in passing a temporary injunction against the petitioner. Secondly, the property is yet to be transferred in the petitioner's name. Thus, the learned Family Court is unjustified in passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order.
5. Admittedly the suit has been filed for seeking maintenance by the wife, on her own behalf, and on behalf of the minor daughter. According to the respondent No.1, ever since she was forced to leave the matrimonial home, she is unemployed. Thus she is forced to live with her parents as she is unable to look after either herself, or the daughter. According to her, the daughter is studying in 5th Standard. However, the petitioner is refusing to maintain either the wife, or the daughter. She further claims that House No.558 -5- situated on 10th Main, 4th Stage, T. K. Layout, Mysuru, earlier belonged to the petitioner's mother. But with the death of the petitioner's mother, the property has devolved down to the petitioner. Moreover, even the child has a share in the said property through her father. Moreover, in case the petitioner is permitted to alienate the property, no immovable property would exist for attachment, in case the petitioner were to default in paying the maintenance to the respondents, in future.
6. Since the property does belong to the petitioner's mother, since the mother has expired, the property would devolve down to the petitioner. But in case the petitioner is permitted to create a third party right, it would preclude the respondents from getting the said property attached, if the petitioner were to default in payment of the maintenance. Thus, prima facie, a case does exist in favour of the respondents. -6- Moreover, even the balance of convenience lies in their favour. Lastly, in case the property is permitted to be alienated, an irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents, as they will be precluded from getting the said property attached, in order to realize the maintenance that would be rightfully granted.
7. Considering the fact that the respondent No.1 is an unemployed woman, saddled with the responsibility of having to bring up a daughter, the respondents need to be protected, both financially and otherwise, by the Court. Therefore, the learned Family Court was justified in protecting the interest of the respondents, and in preventing the petitioner from alienating the property, and from creating a third party right.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned -7- order. This petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE RD