Sri G R Nagabhushana Reddy vs Smt Usha Rani N G on 6 June, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri G R Nagabhushana Reddy vs Smt Usha Rani N G on 6 June, 2022

Bench: S.G. Pandit

                                1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

           WRIT PETITION No.7594/2022 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:
G.R.NAGABHUSHANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O RAMA REDDY
R/AT GUNDAGALLU VILLAGE
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572127.                         ...PETITIONER

              (BY SRI.NAGARAJA REDDY.D., ADV.)


AND:
SMT.USHA RANI.N.G.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O. G.R.NAGABHUSHANA REDDY
D/O N.GOVINDA REDDY
R/AT NEAR SADARA HOSTEL
V.V. PURAM, GOURIBIDANUR
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.                      ...RESPONDENT


        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER      DATED   11.08.2021    PASSED    ON    I.A.NO.1    IN
M.C.NO.59/2021 BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC,    AT   GOURIBIDANUR,     AS   PER   ANNEXURE-A       AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION.
                                2



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

                          ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the exparte interim order passed on I.A.No.I dated 11.08.2021 in M.C.No.59/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Gouribidanur [Annexure-A].

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Nagaraja Reddy.D for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent-wife filed petition under Section 13[1][ia][ib] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short the Act] seeking dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and respondent dated 17.02.2022. Along with the petition, respondent is said to have filed application under Section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner 3 that without issuing notice on I.A, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent, directing the petitioner herein to pay the said sum. Learned counsel would submit that Section 24 of the Act requires issuance of notice and the Family Court could not have granted exparte interim maintenance, without hearing the petitioner.

4. Admittedly, the Family Court passed an order on I.A.I under Section 24 of the Act directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent, without issuing notice to the petitioner herein and without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has an opportunity to file application for vacating interim order or seeking modification of the order dated 11.08.2021. It is for the petitioner at the first instance to file application before the Family Court and to urge all the grounds urged in this petition. If the Family Court passes any adverse order, it is always open for the petitioner to approach this Court. 4

Thus, I decline to entertain the writ petition. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Family Court. If such application is filed I am sure the Family Court would consider the same on its merit and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE NC.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court