- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SRI DEEPAK v. SMT HEMAVATHI P
- 1 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22552
WP No. 10691 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 10691 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. DEEPAK,
S/O. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O. BALAJI RAO,
NO. 42, NEW NO. U49, 2ND CROSS,
MUNIVEERAPPA BLOCK,
P.G. HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003.
AND ALSO RESIDING AT
SRI. DEEPAK P.,
S/O. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO. 796, 1ST A MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, 1ST FLOOR,
VALIKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 003. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. HEMAVATHI P.,
D/O. PANDURANGA RAO B., W/O. DEEPAK R.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 99, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
RMV 2ND STAGE, ASHWATHNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 094. …RESPONDENT
- 2 -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLES PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN MC. 5448/2021 DATED
21.02.2023, IN SO FAR AS AWARDING MAINTENANCE OF
RS.15,000 PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is the husband and Respondent is the wife; they are an estranged couple. Respondent has filed M.C.No.5448/2021 seeking a decree for dissolution of their marriage on certain grounds. Respondent-wife's Application in I.A.No.2 filed u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 having been favoured, learned I Addl. Prl. Judge of Family Court at Bengaluru vide order dated 21.02.2023 has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay Rs.15,000/- per month for the maintenance of child. The same is put in challenge in writ jurisdiction.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the Petition papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the
- 3 -
marital relationship with the Respondent is not disputed and the legitimacy of the child is also admitted. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that his client does not have sufficient means to pay maintenance is difficult to countenance. It is a duty in law, in religion and in reason that the father has to make payment for the maintenance of children. However, no material is produced to show that the Respondent is gainfully employed and she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty is on the shoulders of father.
3. That apart, the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 is a product of exercise of statutory discretion; for invoking writ remedy under Article 226/227 a strong case for violation of rules of reason & justice has to be made out. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper substantiating the said contention. Therefore, all aspects having been duly considered, this Court opines that the impugned order does not merit a deeper examination in
- 4 -
constitutionally vested under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction under vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the Respondent-wife through Speed Post immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
Alert