Sri Darshanik M M vs Smt Poornima A
2023 Latest Caselaw 9140 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9140 Kant
Judgement Date : 4 December, 2023

Karnataka High Court

Sri Darshanik M M vs Smt Poornima A on 4 December, 2023

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                            -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:43755
                                                  WP No. 20069 of 2023




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                       BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                      WRIT PETITION NO. 20069 OF 2023 (GM-FC)


              BETWEEN:

                    SRI DARSHANIK M M
                    S/O SRI M L MANJUNATH
                    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                    R/A NO.77, KARISHMA HILLS
                    SUBAMANYAPURA P O
                    BANGALORE-560061
                                                            ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI. DR. M SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE)

              AND:

              1.    SMT POORNIMA A
                    W/O SRI DARSHANIK M M
                    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI 2.    KUM. VAHNISHKA GOWDA
BK                  D/O SRI DARSHANIK M M
Location: HIGH      AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
COURT OF            (MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER
KARNATAKA
                    SMT. POORNIMA A)

                    BOTH ARE R/AT NO.868,
                    IV CROSS, 26TH CROSS
                    BTM LAYOUT, II STAGE,
                    BANGALORE-560078

                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
              (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV FOR R1;
                  R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1)
                                 -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:43755
                                            WP No. 20069 of 2023




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2023 AND
21/03/2023 IN C.MISC. NO.408/2019 PENDING ON THE FILES
OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND PASS CONSEQUENTIAL
ORDERS.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

prayer:

" PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

a. Allow the Petition and set aside the order dated 28/02/2023 & all other consequential orders in C.Misc.No.408/2019 pending on the files of the Hon'ble Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A and pass consequential orders. b. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of Justice and Equity."

2. Heard Sri.Dr.M.Sunil Sastry, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel

Sri.Chandrashekar Patil, appearing for respondent No.1.

NC: 2023:KHC:43755

3. The petitioner is the husband and respondent No.1

- wife. The wife initiates proceedings invoking Section 125 of

Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance at the hands of the husband in

Crl.Misc.No.408/2019 on 12.06.2019. The concerned Court, by

its order dated 28.02.2023, directed the petitioner to pay a

sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent. The said order is called in

question in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs is directed to be paid

from nowhere, as there is no consideration at the hands of the

concerned Court qua the judgments rendered on the issue of

grant of maintenance by the Apex Court and the Court has

passed an order directing the said payment.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

would admit that the concerned Court has not followed the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha,1

but would only submit that a time limit be prescribed for the

concerned Court to dispose the application I.A.No.2 seeking

grant of maintenance.

(2021) 2 SCC 324

NC: 2023:KHC:43755

6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, a perusal

at the order would indicate that the concerned Court has

passed an order directing payment of Rs.5 lakhs, without

considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Rajnesh (Supra). This appears to be a serious flaw, in the light

of the judgment in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi vs Jitesh

Sharma reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1451, which follows

Rajnesh vs. Neha.

7. In the light of the law reiterated by the Apex Court

in the case of Aditi (Supra), the concerned Court ought to have

looked into the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Rajnesh (Supra) and then directed appropriate maintenance to

be paid in an application filed by the wife. In the light of the

order not referring to Rajnesh (Supra), the order is rendered

unsustainable.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The order dated 28.02.2023 and all other consequential orders in C.Misc.No.408/2019

NC: 2023:KHC:43755

pending on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru are set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) and then pass appropriate orders on application in I.A.No.2 seeking maintenance.