C N Mahesh vs S Savitha on 11 August, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

C N Mahesh vs S Savitha on 11 August, 2014

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

                          1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

                      BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA


        WRIT PETITION NO. 33607/2014 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

C.N. MAHESH
S/O C. NAGENDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ASST. MASTER,
PRIMARY SCHOOL,
R/O SRI. GURUBASAVA NILAYA,
R/O ONAKE OBAVVA BUILDING,
ESHWARA BADAVANE,
TAMATAKALLU ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
                                   ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. : KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, Adv.)

AND:
S. SAVITHA
D/O LATE SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O OBALAPURA,
THIMMANNANAYAKANA KOTE (P),
PARASHURAMAPURA HOBLI,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.
                                   ... RESPONDENT
                             2




    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPALO
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHITRADURGA
DATED 25.03.2014 IN M.C. NO. 83/2013 VIDE
ANNEXURE 'E' BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 15.04.2012. M.C.No.83/2013 was filed by the petitioner, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Chitradurga, on 03.08.2013, to dissolve the said marriage. Respondent filed statement of objections to the main case on 24.02.2014. On the same date, I.A.No.1 was filed by her. Petitioner opposed I.A.No.1 by filing statement of objections on 19.03.2014. The said application having been allowed in part and the petitioner having been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month, under the nomenclature 'litigation expenses', this writ petition was filed to quash the said order.

2. Heard Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff, learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the writ petition record.

3. The solemnization of marriage on 15.04.2012 is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner is a school teacher and the respondent is un- employed person is also not in dispute. The respondent is not having any means to take care of herself. The petitioner, who has assured salary income, has the obligation to provide maintenance to the respondent, during pendency of M.C.No.83/2013. The learned Trial Judge, instead of directing payment of interim alimony, has chosen to order payment of Rs.3,000/- per month as 'litigation expenses' which is reasonable.

4. Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff, is unable to point out as to how the claim of the respondent is excessive vis-à-vis salary income of the petitioner. There being 4 neither any illegality nor irrationality on the part of the Court below, I do not find any justification to entertain this writ petition.

In the result, writ petition is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the case, with expedition, in case, the petitioner extends ready co-operation, by appearing on all the hearing dates of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE dh*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court