Karnataka High Court
T Girigowda vs Gajalakshmi on 24 June, 2013
Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.8434 OF 2013 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
T.GIRIGOWDA
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O. ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE
DODDA JATAKA POST
BELUR HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GAJALAKSHMI
W/O. GIRIGOWDA
MAJOR.
2. C. DEEKSHITHA
D/O. GIRIGOWDA (SOCALLED)
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
GAJALAKSHMI.
SL.NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE
R/O. NO.5295, 10TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR
MYSORE - 570017.
... RESPONDENTS
***
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY FAMILY COURT, MYSORE IN
CRIMINAL MISC. NO.64/2008 DATED 7.9.2012, AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing order at Annexure - B passed by the Family Court in Criminal Misc. No.64/2008 dated 7.9.2012. He has also sought for a direction that the interim maintenance paid to wife be adjusted towards the maintenance of daughter - C.Deekshitha (respondent No.2 herein).
2. The records reveal that during the pendency of the matter, the Family Court had awarded interim maintenance of Rs.800/- per month in favour of respondent No.1 (wife of the petitioner) and Rs.500/- per month in favour of respondent No.2 (daughter of the petitioner). Ultimately, the petition filed by the wife came 3 to be dismissed and the award of maintenance paid in favour of daughter is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month. The said order of granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month is confirmed by this Court.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has paid Rs.800/- per month as interim maintenance wrongly and therefore, the amount so paid in favour of respondent No.1 may be adjusted as maintenance to be paid in favour of respondent No.2.
Such submissions cannot be accepted. First of all, the order of dismissal passed by the Family Court dismissing the petition for maintenance filed by the wife cannot have retrospective effect and therefore the interim maintenance granted to wife cannot be recovered. Consequently, the amount already paid in favour of the wife cannot be adjusted towards the maintenance of child. The maintenance of child is independent of the order of maintenance relating to respondent No.1. 4
Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk / ck