Karnataka High Court
Sri Ningappa Puttappa Kodabal vs Smt. Saroja on 13 September, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.35653/2013 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI NINGAPPA PUTTAPPA KODABAL,
S/O.PUTTAPPA KODABAL GUDAGOOR,
AGE:33 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE,
RANEBENNUR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
RANEBENNUR CITY, HAVERI DISTRICT,
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
GUDUGOOR VILLAGE,
RANEBENNUR TALUKA,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.B.HEBBALLI, ADV.)
AND:
SMT SAROJA,
W/O.NINGAPPA PUTTAPPA KODABAL,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:C/O.BASAPURADA NAGAPPA,
BHANUVALLI VILLAGE,
HARIHARA TALUKA,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, ADV. FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.6.13
PASSED IN CR.MISC NO.120/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE IN SO FAR AS IT
2
RELATES TO ALLOWING IA NO.2 GRANTING INTERIM
MAINTAINANCE AT THE RATE OF RS.5,000/- P.M.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, VIDE ANNX-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent has entered caveat. In that view, the petition itself is taken up for consideration with the consent of the learned counsel.
2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. Due to certain marital discord they have been residing separately. In that view, the respondent herein has filed a petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.120/2012 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondent had filed IA.No.II/2013 under Section 125 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code seeking interim maintenance. The Court below by the order dated 17.06.2013 on noticing that the petitioner herein who is the respondent before the Court below was absent had placed him exparte and had thereafter allowed IA.No.II/2013 without detail discussion on the 3 application and interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- was granted. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner herein had filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 17.06.2013. The Court below though has accepted the application insofar as recalling the order, whereby the petitioner had been placed exparte and had permitted him to file the objection, has not made any detail consideration on IA.No.II/2013 on appearance of the petitioner, but has by a cryptic order indicated that the order passed on IA.No.II/2013 for interim maintenance shall continue. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. As noticed, at the first instance itself while allowing IA.No.II/2013, the Court below has not adverted to the contentions putforth in the said application. Further at this juncture, though the petitioner therein has filed the objections, the same has also not been taken into consideration, but the earlier order which had been passed without any reasoning has been maintained. In such circumstance, the order would not be sustainable inasmuch as IA.No.II/2013 would have to be 4 considered by the Court below in the light of the averments made therein and the objections putforth by the petitioner herein, who is the respondent before the Court below. Hence, to the said extent, the order impugned herein is set aside. IA.No.II/2013 is restored to the file of the Family Court at Davanagere to reconsider the same after providing opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is however directed to pay the monthly ad- interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent herein before the Court below till IA.No.II/2013 is considered and disposed of on its merits by the Court below. The said amount shall be paid on or before 5th of every month without any default in that regard.
4. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*