Smt Priya L vs Dr Harender Keerthi
2023 Latest Caselaw 75 Kant

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

    WRIT PETITION No.33740 OF 2015 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT.PRIYA L.,
W/O DR.HARENDER KEERTHI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.127, 4TH MAIN,
INCOME TAX LAYOUT,
VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040.            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI GURUMATH GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR.HARENDER KEERTHI
S/O KEERTHI SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.216, 2ND CROSS,
COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT,
HEBBAL KEMPPURA, BANGALORE - 24.       ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.06.2015 AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THAT PASSED BY THE
2ND ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BANGALORE IN EX.NO.87/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE - C.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    2




                              ORDER

Sri.Manjunath.B.R., learned counsel for respondent

has appeared in person.

The respondent herein had filed a Petition under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife

seeking a decree of the restitution of conjugal rights with a

direction to join him to continue the matrimonial

relationship in M.C.No.1251/2011. The Family Court vide

order dated:02.12.2013 allowed the petition and directed

the wife to join her husband and continue the matrimonial

relationship within two months from the order date, i.e.,

02.12.2013.

Despite the order, the wife failed to comply with the

order passed by the Family Court. Hence, the respondent

was constrained to file an execution petition to execute the

decree of restitution of the conjugal rights on the file of

Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru in Ex.No.87/2014.

As the matter stood thus, the Family Court vide

order dated 29.06.2015 issued a warrant for attachment of

movables of the judgment debtor. This order is called into

question on several grounds as set out in the writ petition.

Sri.Manjunath.B.R., learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent on instruction submits that the

husband - respondent is not interested in pressing/

prosecuting the execution petition. Hence, appropriate

order may be passed.

Heard, the learned counsel for the respondent and

perused the writ papers and annexures with utmost care.

The submission made on behalf of the respondent

about not pressing the execution petition is placed on

record.

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed

in the Execution Petition. Since the respondent is not

willing to press the Execution Petition, nothing requires to

be considered in the Writ Petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TKN