Karnataka High Court
Chandrakala @ Renuka W/O. Andappa ... vs Andappa S/O. Mallappa Bairagond on 3 September, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NOS.107078/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
CHANDRAKALA @ RENUKA,
W/O. ANDAPPA BAIRAGOND,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
R/O. HALAKERI VILLAGE OF RON TALUKA
PRESENTLY R/AT:
C/O. MUDUKAPPA KARIYANNAVAR
MALLAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DAYANAND M BANDI, ADV. )
AND
ANDAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA BAIRAGOND
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: KSRTC DRIVER.
YALABURGA DEPOT
R/O. HALAKERI VILLAGE,
TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. ... RESPONDENT
(Served)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
:2:
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14/07/2014 PASSED BY THE
COURT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RON, IN MC.NO.13/2010 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 14.7.2014 passed by the Trial Court in M.C.No.13/2010 vide annexure-F.
2. By the impugned order at annexure 'F', the trial court has deferred consideration of I.A.No.3 along with the main matter.
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Briefly stated the facts are;
The respondent has filed M.C.No.13/2010 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In the said petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.3 for interim :3: maintenance. The petitioner has requested the trial court to consider I.A.No.3 before considering the matter on merits. The trial court has deferred consideration of I.A.No.3 along with the main matter. Therefore, this writ petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial court has erred while deferring consideration of I.A.No.3. The trial court should have considered I.A.No.3 before considering the matter on merits. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. AIR 1996 Bombay 94
2. AIR 1975 Rajasthan 8
6. The respondent is served and remains un- represented.
7. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. :4:
8. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.3 for interim maintenance. The trial court has deferred consideration of I.A.No.3 along with the main matter. In Smt. Sushila Viresh Chhadva Vs. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva reported in AIR 1996 Bombay Page 94, the Bombay High Court has held, the court cannot defer consideration of interim maintenance till the disposal of main issue. In Chhaganlal Vs. Smt Sakkha Devi, reported in AIR 1975 Rajasthan Page 8, the Rajasthan High Court has held, the disposal of application under Sections 10 and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act after determining the main petition or by the same judgment is also wrong.
9. It is clear from the above decisions that an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act needs to be considered before considering the matter on merits. Therefore, the trial court was not justified in deferring consideration of I.A.No.3.
:5:
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to consider I.A.No.3 before considering the matter on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sub/