Karnataka High Court
Smt N Asha W/O Sri G Sreenivasa Murthy vs Sri G Srinivasa Murthy S/O Sr C Gopal on 20 December, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, A.V.Chandrashekara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A V CHANDRASHEKARA
Writ Petition Nos. 29371-72 of 2010 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT N ASHA
W/O SRI G SREENIVASA MURTHY
D/O SRI NARASASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O NO 189, 12TH CROSS
NAGENDRA BLOCK
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 050 ... PETITIONER
[By Sri M B Naragund, Adv.]
AND:
SRI G SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O SRI C GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO. 175,
6TH CROSS, NAVILU ROAD,
A & B BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 023 ... RESPONDENT
[By Ms Hemalata Mahishi, Adv.]
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.
NO.11 AND 14 IN MC NO. 1195/2004 DATED 15.04.2009 AND
20.07.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE - K AND ANNEXURE - M
2
RESPECTIVELY BY THE FIRST ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT AT BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 15-4-2009 and 20-7-2010 passed by the Family Court, Bangalore, on IA No XI and IA Nos XII, XIII and IV respectively, in MC No 1195 of 2004.
2. IA-XI was filed by the petitioner herein seeking enhancement of interim maintenance from Rs 3,000/- p.m. to Rs 10,000/- p.m. This application has been dismissed by the family court. Now, the petition filed for a decree of divorce has also been dismissed on merits. Therefore, the question of considering the plea of petitioner for enhancement of the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not arise at all.
3. In so far as IA-XII is concerned, on an earlier occasion, the respondent-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs 2,000/- as maintenance to wife and Rs 1,000/- 3 to the child. Later, an application came to be filed by the husband contending that the petitioner-wife had suppressed the fact of her employment and getting salary. Based on this submission of the husband, his application came to be allowed, directing the petitioner to adjust the amount received earlier towards the future maintenance. In so far as this order is concerned, Smt Hemalata Mahishi, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, submits that she will not press the said interlocutory applications filed by her client and the earlier maintenance amount may not be adjusted towards the future maintenance.
4. If it is so, nothing survives to be considered in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk