Karnataka High Court
Rajeshri W/O Yogesh Potdar vs Yogesh S/O Subas Potdar on 31 July, 2019
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NOS.200797-798/2018 (GM-CPC)
Between:
Rajeshri W/o Yogesh Potdar
Age: 29 Years, Occ: Household work
R/o Vijayapura-586101
... Petitioner
(By Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman, Advocate)
And:
Yogesh S/o Subas Potdar
Age: 38 Years, Occ: Service
R/o Plot No.24, Ganesh Plaza
Near Shivaji Matha Mandir
Mugale Anbna Nagar
Dhanakwadi Poona-411043
... Respondent
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the order dated 03.08.2016 at Annexure-
E passed in Crl.Misc.No.126/2015 on the file of the Judge
Family Court, Vijayapur at Vijayapur and etc.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the court made the following:-
2
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 03.08.2016 and 30.08.2016 passed in Crl.Misc.No.126/2015 on the file of the Family Judge, Vijayapura.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. It transpires that the Family Court, Vijayapura has awarded maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for maintenance. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the application under Order XVI Rule 6 R/w Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to direct the respondent to produce the medical records from 2010 to 2016. Similarly, another application was filed under Section XXI R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking for attachment and sale of the property bearing House No.1087, Ganesh Plaza, Plot No.24 Dhanakwadi, Pune-411403. Both the 3 applications came to be rejected by the trial Court. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is obligated to pay the maintenance amount determined by the Court below and on some flimsy grounds, the respondent is avoiding the payment. Hence, the prayer made by the petitioner for attaching the property aforesaid towards arrears of the maintenance amount and to call for medical records from the year 2010 to 2016 of the respondent ought to have been properly considered by the Court below. Rejection of these applications resulted in miscarriage of justice.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is recorded by the trial Court that the property aforementioned stands in the name of the mother of the respondent. Even if the petitioner claims that the respondent is 4 having any share and interest in the said property, unless the said share is determined, no attachment of the property standing in the name of the mother of the respondent could be attached for realization of arrears of maintenance amount, payable by the respondent. As regards the prayer for production of the medical records, it has been observed that in the proceedings for maintenance, to establish the submission of the respondent that since last three years he is suffering from paralysis, the medical bills are not relevant to be summoned. The aforesaid finding of the trial Court cannot be faulted with.
No grounds made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petitions are bereft of merit and accordingly stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL