Karnataka High Court
Jatin Gupta vs Monika Aggarwal on 14 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10526
WP No. 26662 of 2023
C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 26662 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 10716 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
IN WP NO.26662/2023
BETWEEN:
JATIN GUPTA,
S/O SHRI. DAULAT RAM GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT D-210,
PARASMANE APARTMENTS,
DUBASIPALYA KENGERI,
SATELLITE TOWN,
R.V. COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by V KRISHNA AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MONIKA AGGARWAL,
KARNATAKA WIFE OF SHRI. JATIN GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.101,
WING 1, INFRANY PETALS
APARTMENTS,
KAMMASANDRA ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
HEBBAGODI,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MONIKA AGGARWAL, PARTY IN PERSON)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10526
WP No. 26662 of 2023
C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER
QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.11.2023,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU, TRANSFERRING M.C. NO. 2517/2023
FROM THE FILE OF THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC.
IN WP NO.10716/2023
BETWEEN:
MRS. MONIKA AGGARWAL,
WIFE OF SHRI. JATIN GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.101,
WING 1, INFRANY PETALS
APARTMENTS,
KAMMASANDRA ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
HEBBAGODI,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MONIKA AGGARWAL, PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
MR. JATIN GUPTA,
S/O SHRI. DAULAT RAM GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT D-210,
PARASMANE APARTMENTS,
DUBASIPALYA KENGERI,
SATELLITE TOWN,
R.V. COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:10526
WP No. 26662 of 2023
C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED. 10.04.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN MC NO.3363/2020
WHICH IS NOT BASED ON THE UNDISPUTED DOCUMENTS
OF THE RECORD AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE TO BE
SUBSTANTIALLY ENHANCED FROM RS.35000 PER MONTH
TO RS.114000 PER MONTH AS CLAIMED IN THE
MAINTENANCE APPLICATION OR AT A RATE OF 50 PERCENT
OF TOTAL DISPOSABLE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT AS
DISCLOSED BY HIM IN HIS ITR FOR YEAR 2021-22 ON THE
BASIS OF WHICH THE LD. FAMILY COURT IN PARA 14 OF
THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS HELD HIS MONTHLY INCOME
TO BE RS. 2,37,838.20
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
IN WP.NO.26662/2023 AND WP.NO.10716/2023 W.P.No.26662/2023 is filed by the husband seeking the following relief:
"Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this Petition and:
a. Issue a Writ of CERTIORARI or any other Writ, direction or order quashing the Notification dated 07.11.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, transferring M.C.No.2517/2023 from the file of the Hon'ble IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the file of the Hon'ble VI Additional Principal Judge, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 Family Court, Bengaluru vide Notification dated 07.11.2023, bearing No.FC/PEN/685/2023 [ANNEXURE-
C].
b. Issue a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other Writ, direction or order directing expeditious disposal of M.C.No.2517/2023 [ANNEXURE-B].
c. Such other Writ/s, direction/s, order/s having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
W.P.No.10716/2023 is filed by the wife seeking the following relief:
"Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction modifying the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 annexed as ANNEXURE-A passed by the IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on IA NO.V in MC NO.3363/2020 passed u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in so far as granting of only Rs.35,000/- for maintenance of the Petitioner and minor child for the period of January 2021 to March 2023 by increasing/enhancing/modifying the maintenance amount to Rs.114000/- per month as claimed in the maintenance application with cost.
b) Pass any other writ/order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife.
3. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2011 and out of the wedlock, they are blessed with a boy on 16.10.2012. It is the case of the husband that the wife had left the matrimonial home in the year 2020. Thereafter, he has filed a petition in M.C.No.3363/2020 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. On 07.01.2021, the wife has filed I.A.No.5 seeking interim maintenance at Rs.1,14,000/- and claimed litigation expenses at Rs.5,00,000/-. The Court below at the initial stage has granted an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards litigation expenses and the husband has paid the same. Thereafter on 30.06.2021, the husband has filed an application to withdraw M.C.No.3363/2020 which was filed seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights -6- NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 as the wife had refused to join the husband at the time of mediation.
4. On 02.08.2021, the wife has given a complaint to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru stating that the Court officials are harassing her. Thereafter on 06.08.2021, the wife has filed another application seeking to withdraw the afore mentioned allegations made against the Court officials. When the matter came up on 24.05.2022, the Court passed an order directing the concerned police to give protection to the wife and she was also permitted to appear through video conference if there were any impediments to appear before the Court in person. The wife has also addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru wherein she has stated that M.C.No.3363/2020 was being adjourned unnecessarily. Thereafter the Court has observed that it was not just and proper to pass any orders considering the allegations of the wife and on -7- NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 24.05.2022, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru transferred the case to the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for disposal of the case in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru without any further notice from the Court on 30.05.2022.
5. After transferring the case to the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the learned Judge has heard the IA filed seeking interim maintenance and granted an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month as maintenance and also permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition by order dated 10.04.2023. Thereafter on 15.04.2023, the husband has filed M.C.No.2517/2023 seeking divorce and the matter was assigned to the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru as the earlier matter was heard by the learned Judge. When the matter came up before the Court on 17.04.2023, notice was -8- NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 ordered and on 06.07.2023, the wife had appeared before the Court and the matter was posted on 07.08.2023 for filing her objections to the petition. Then I.A.No.7 is filed on 07.08.2023 wherein it is stated that the Family Court presided by Hon'ble Judge Smt.Panchakshari.M had already decided application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.3363/2023 by the order dated 10.04.2023 which is already placed on record. In that petition, a meager sum of Rs.35,000/- per month was awarded against the claim of an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- for the wife and the child. This meager amount was awarded ignoring the undisputed monthly income of an amount of Rs.2,59,397/- of the husband as per his own documents placed on record. Aggrieved by this order, the wife has filed WP.No.10716/2023 and in that Writ petition, an emergent notice was ordered.
6. It is stated in IA.No.5, the Court has already expressed its opinion for grant of maintenance by order -9- NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023. In the present petition, the wife has filed another IA seeking maintenance for herself and the child and as the Court already expressed the opinion, the same Court cannot hear and decide the application as a matter of judicial proprietary. As such, a prayer is sought that the matter may be transferred to any other Family Court and recuse herself from trying this petition any further.
7. On 26.10.2023, having perused IA.No.7, the learned Judge has observed that it is appropriate to place records before the Principal Judge, Family Court for appropriate orders as the learned Judge did not have any administrative powers to transfer the cases and accordingly for convenience of the parties, hearing was scheduled on 20.11.2023. Thereafter, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in exercise of the powers under Section 4(2)(C) of the Family Court Act had transferred M.C.No.2517/2023 pending on the file of IV Additional Family Court, Bengaluru to the VI
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 Additional Family Court, Bengaluru for disposal in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby, the husband is before this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the wife who is appearing as party-in- person has been indulging in this kind of allegations against the judicial officers and once she filed a petition against the Court employees and against the judicial officers, the matter was transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to the Court of IV Additional Family Court, Bengaluru and again from the Court of IV Additional Principal Judge to the VI Additional Family Court, Bengaluru. Learned counsel submits that the wife cannot be permitted to make this kind of allegations against the judicial officers and if the matter is transferred from one Court to another, it will be very difficult for the Court to decide the case. He further submits that if a particular order is passed by a Judge and when another application is filed basing
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 on the material on record, the Judge would be deciding the same. The word used is that it is not judicial proprietary, which is without any connection and basis and this kind of petitions and this kind of forum shopping shall be deprecated by this Court.
9. He had relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Narendar Bhutani Vs. Anjali Bhutani1. He relied on para 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which reads as follows:
"7. Not only the above, the petitioner has also been making repeated scandalous remarks against various other Courts, forcing such Courts to transfer the cases to some other Courts. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, Haryana in Petition no. 33/2015 titled Anjali Bhutani v. Narender Bhutani; and the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, Haryana in Case No. 6/2016 titled Anjali v. Narinder. He has also drawn my attention to the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Karnal in Case no.1
2023 SCC OnLine Del 4972
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 6/2016, whereby the learned Court has expressed its anguish on the application filed by the petitioner herein, especially on the intemperate language used in the said application, and has imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner.
8. From the above sequence and record, it is my prima facie view that the petitioner is in the habit of making scandalous remarks against the Presiding Officers of the Courts in order to browbeat them, and generally, the Courts succumb to such tactics and are forced to transfer the cases of the petitioner to another Court, rather than being dragged into this malicious campaign.
9. In Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter), (2016) 5 SCC 808, the Supreme Court has observed that although it is important that justice must be seen to be done, it is equally important that the Judicial Officers discharge their duty to adjudicate the lis and do not, by acceding too readily to suggestions of appearance of bias, encourage parties to believe that by seeking the disqualification of the Judge, they will have their case tried by someone thought to be more likely to decide the case in their favour. The Court emphasized that the ground for disqualification is a reasonable apprehension that the Judicial Officer will not decide the case impartially or without prejudice, rather than he will not decide the case adversely to one party. The nature of the judicial function involves the performance of difficult and at times unpleasant tasks. To this end, the Judicial Officer must resist all manner of pressure regardless of where it comes from. There may be
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 situations where mischievous litigants wanting to avoid a Judge, may be because he is known to them to be strong, make an attempt for forum shopping raising baseless submissions on conflict of interest. The court should not allow such attempt of the party to succeed.
10. The present case is one of the cases which exemplifies the fear expressed by the Supreme Court. Merely because the petitioner, who appears in person, makes scandalous remarks against the Judge, the learned Principal Judge should not have sought her recusal from the cases and sought transfer of the same to another Judge. The court should have, instead, taken stern action against the petitioner, so as to uphold the majesty of the Court and the Law.
11. I, therefore, reject the request of the learned Principal Judge to transfer the above cases to some other court."
10. It is submitted that these allegations and this kind of transfer of proceedings has been initiated in the year 2020 and the divorce petition that is filed in the year 2023 is pending before the Court. Learned counsel has relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 Court in the case of Anupam Ghosh and Another Vs. Faiz Mohammed and others 2.
"One of the grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred is that the petitioners believe that they are not getting a fair trial and the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court. We deprecate such a stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any judicial order, the proper remedy would be to challenge the same before higher forum. But merely because some Orders adverse to them are passed by the Court, it cannot be said that the Orders on judicial side are passed under influence. Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice."2
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 751
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
11. The wife has appeared as party-in-person virtually and she has filed written arguments before this Court. It is stated that in the earlier maintenance application, it was adjourned 43 times. As the learned Judge has already expressed her opinion, the wife has sought for the transfer. The subsequent petition filed by the husband cannot be assigned to the same Court and she has filed I.A.No.7 to transfer the petition to some other Court and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru has transferred the matter to VI Additional Family Court, Bengaluru by notification dated 07.11.2023.
12. It is stated that the husband has been harassing and beating the respondent at various places for which complaints are made to the local Police. On 15.08.2020, the respondent had to lock herself with the child in a room and local Police rescued them and shifted the wife and the child to a hotel. It is stated that the prayer that is sought in the Writ Petition is
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 scandalous and made with an ulterior intention. Earlier, the maintenance petition was adjourned for 43 times and almost every adjournment was taken by the husband on one pretext or the other. The husband has not filed his statement of assets and liabilities in spite of the repeated adjournments granted by the Court till 23.07.2021. He has filed the affidavit of statement of assets and liabilities on 05.08.2020. It is also stated that the husband wanted to run away in the middle of the proceedings seeking withdrawal of the petition filed before the Family Court to escape his liability of paying maintenance and this is not permitted. He was responsible for prolonging and stalling the proceedings of the earlier petition. It is also stated that even the counsel appearing for the husband has intimidated the wife who has appeared as party-in-person. The wife was very much scared and this continuously haunted her mind and on the next day i.e., 07.08.2023 I.A.No.6 dated 24.07.2023 was filed by the wife by speed post under Family Court Act read with Section 161 of CPC
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 seeking withdrawal of the permission granted for the appearance of advocate for the petitioner and conduct the proceedings on his behalf for his misconduct.
13. It is also stated that after the first hearing, the wife has not directly appeared for the subsequent hearing because she was very much scared. She has also filed I.A.No.9 dated 31.07.2023 by speed post to place on record subsequent professional misconduct of the advocate and also filed written arguments dated 21.09.2023 by speed post. She also filed complaint against the advocate to the Karnataka Bar Council and she also filed I.A.No.12 dated 14.10.2023 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the advocate. When she filed I.A.No.2 dated 03.07.2023 seeking permission of virtual hearing, no orders were passed till 26.10.2023. Thereafter on 26.10.2023, the transferee Court permitted the wife to appear virtually limiting the hearing to whenever necessary.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
14. It is stated that it is judicial discipline that during every proceedings before the Court, both the contesting parties must be comfortable. But in the present case, the advocate for the husband has been taking unchecked liberty during hearing before the Family Court to openly harass and intimidate the wife. By such acts, the wife is very much scared to appear and conduct the proceedings as party-in-person. In such circumstances, the petition should not be heard by the IV Additional Family Court, Bengaluru. In such an atmosphere, this deserves to be transferred to some other Court as has been done in the present case to uphold the rule of law. It is also stated that the transfer of the petition will not cause any prejudice of any kind to the husband whereas it had caused serious prejudice to the wife and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. If there is even an apprehension of any type of prejudice in any Court, then the Court should not hear and try the case.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
15. It is stated that the husband is seeking early disposal of the case and that the matter was adjourned 43 times. IA that is filed seeking interim maintenance has taken such a long time and there was large number of hearings and this Court can understand it may take more than hundred hearings to decide the case. It is stated that the husband and his counsel has repeatedly requested time. It is also stated that the petition deserves to be out rightly dismissed and if the petition is retransferred to IV Additional Principal Judge as prayed for in the petition ignoring the principles of judicial proprietary, then it would be disastrous to uphold the rule of law. Hence, it is prayed that this Writ petition filed by the husband deserves to be dismissed. In the similar lines, the party-in-person has submitted objections and the written arguments.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the husband and also the party-in-person, perused the entire material on record. Initially, M.C.No.3363/2020
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 was filed by the husband on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. In that the learned Judge has granted an amount of Rs.75,000/- as interim maintenance. The party-in-person has initially made allegations against the Court staff and she filed a petition. Thereafter, she has withdrawn the same and then she has sent a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka and the same was sent to the learned Judge by order dated 24.05.2022 and the matter was transferred to the IV Additional Family Court, Bengaluru. There I.A.No.5 for interim maintenance was heard and an amount of Rs.35,000/- was granted. The husband's application seeking to withdraw the M.C.No.3363/2020 was also allowed. On the same day, both interim maintenance is granted and the petition was also permitted to be withdrawn.
17. The wife has questioned the interim maintenance that is granted at Rs.35,000/- by filing W.P.No.10716/2023 which is listed before this Court
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 today. Thereafter, the husband filed M.C.No.2517/2023 on 15.04.2023 seeking divorce. Notice was ordered on 17.04.2023 and on 06.07.2023, she has entered appearance and she has filed petition asking the judicial officer to recuse the matter on the ground that judicial proprietary demands. The reasons that are assigned while filing I.A.No.7 is that already the learned Judge has heard the matter and granted meager maintenance and it is not open for the learned Judge to hear this matter where the very same matter was heard by the learned Judge. In the IA that is filed before the Court, no allegations are made against the advocate. Now in the objections that are filed to this petition, she had made serious allegations against the advocate and now a new version is put forth before this Court stating that the atmosphere in the Court is not conducive for the wife to proceed with the matter. It appears that she has also given several complaints against the advocate appearing for the husband. She filed a contempt and has given a complaint to the Bar
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 Council stating that this is the atmosphere in the IV Additional Family Court, Bengaluru and the matter should not be carried in the Court and it is stated that if the petition is transferred to the IV Additional Principal Judge, Bengaluru ignoring the principles of judicial proprietary, then it would be disastrous to uphold the rule of law.
18. Looking at the allegations that are made against the judicial officers, against the advocate and against the Court employees it appears that for the reasons best known to the wife she is coming up with one complaint after the other and she has filed several complaints against the officers and also against the advocate. Every time whenever the litigant is not happy with the manner in which the learned Judge is conducting the Court proceedings which are not in his favour or a certain view of the Judge is not in their favour, if everybody starts seeking this kind of transfers and start making the allegations against the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 officers it would affect the moral of the Judges and it would be very difficult for them to discharge their judicial functions. The wife is appearing as party-in- person and this Court has perused the objections that are filed and the manner in which the allegations are made and the manner in which the objections are filed resorting to various allegations on all the stake holders.
19. On the first occasion, just because a letter was addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice by the wife, the Principal Judge ought not to have transferred the case. As he has transferred in the first instance, it has become a practice to the party-in-person to come up with the subsequent applications. If the matters are adjourned or if any unfavorable orders are passed and if that is the basis for allegations against the judges then it would be difficult for the officers to discharge their duties. When a petition is filed seeking maintenance, the learned Judge basing on the material placed has passed appropriate orders. If the litigant is
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 aggrieved by such orders, they have every opportunity and they have a right to file an appeal against the said orders and sometimes the Court will remand the matter to decide the matter afresh. It is not open to them to say that the Judge has passed an order, he had taken a stand and the matter cannot be heard by the same Judge and it is not judicial proprietary.
20. This kind of conduct from the party-in-person cannot be appreciated. There is a procedure to ventilate her grievance. The manner in which she has been conducting herself by filing these kinds of petitions against the judicial officers and against the advocates cannot be appreciated. Learned Principal Judge ought not to have transferred the case to another Judge which led to these kind of frivolous petitions one after the other and this Court cannot be mute spectator to these kind of tactics adopted by the litigants and this kind of practice shall be deprecated.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023
21. W.P.No.10716/2023 filed by the wife aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.5 in M.C.No.3363/2023 dated 10.04.2023 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking enhancement of the maintenance. On the day this order is passed, M.C.No.3363/2023 that is filed by the husband seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights is withdrawn and he filed M.C.No.2517/2023 on the same day of the withdrawal of the petition and orders were passed. There is no dispute about the fact that in M.C.No.2517/2023 filed for divorce, the wife has already filed an I.A. seeking maintenance and the same is pending adjudication. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that in the pending IA for maintenance, the husband and the wife shall advance arguments and the Court below basing on the material placed before it shall dispose of the same.
22. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off in the following manner:
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 ORDER i. MC.No.2517/2023 is withdrawn from the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and transferred to the IV Additional Family Court, Bengaluru.
ii. It is made very clear that both the parties shall not ask for any further adjournments and the Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously.
iii. In the pending IA for maintenance, the husband and the wife shall advance arguments and the Court below basing on the material placed before it shall dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order uninfluenced by the earlier order passed by the Court below.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10526 WP No. 26662 of 2023 C/W WP No. 10716 of 2023 iv. Accordingly, WP.No.26662/2023 and WP.No.10716/2023 are disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:SNN