Karnataka High Court
Santosh S/O Muthappa Sakhre vs Jayalaxmi W/O Santosh Sakhre on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15588
WP No. 148668 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.148668 OF 2020 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH, S/O MUTHAPPA SAKHRE,
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: SHIVAMURTHY, 8L,
RAMKRISHNAPPA ROAD,
COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.
NOW RESIDING AT: HARIPUR,
SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASAD.R.SIDHANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
JAYALAXMI W/O SANTOSH SAKHRE,
M
Location: HIGH
AGE: 33 YEARS,
BHARATHI COURT OF
HM KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
OCC: HOUSE WORK,
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.06 R/O: MATHA COMPLEX,
11:28:56 +0530
JAYANAGAR, SAPTAPUR,
DHARWAD-580 008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT IN E.P.NO.07/2018 DATED 07/11/2020
PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE.J AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15588
WP No. 148668 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order
dated 07.11.2020 passed in Execution Petition No.7/2018 by
the Prl. Judge Family Court, Dharwad ('Executing Court', for
short), whereby the petition filed by the decree holder under
Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is
allowed and the judgment debtor is directed to make payment
of the claim amount.
2. The wife had filed M.C. No.60/2017 seeking divorce
and the same came to be allowed by order dated 13.08.2018
whereby the Court had granted a decree of divorce and
directed the husband to pay permanent alimony of
Rs.10,00,000/- to the wife. Thereafter, the wife filed execution
petition. To this, objections were filed by the judgment debtor.
According to the judgment debtor i.e. the husband, the decree
was drawn on 13.08.2018, whereas on 16.07.2018 itself i.e.,
much prior to the drawing of the decree, the judgment debtor
had filed an affidavit wherein he had voluntarily agreed to pay
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15588
the permanent alimony amount and settle the matter subject to
the condition that the decree holder would withdraw all cases
pending before the Courts at Sangli. He had already paid an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and, according to the judgment
debtor, he was only supposed to pay an amount of
Rs.6,00,000/-. The defence that was taken by the judgment
debtor is rejected by the Executing Court, and while passing
the order impugned, the Executing Court observed that the
powers of the Executing Court are limited and it cannot travel
beyond the decree. Aggrieved thereby, the husband, who is the
judgment debtor, is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/judgment debtor submits that, as per the court
records, it could be seen that petitioner/judgment debtor has
already paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and when the
petitioner has placed all the relevant records before the Court,
the Executing Court ought to have considered the same and
deducted the said amount from an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Learned counsel submits that the Court has failed to consider
all these aspects of the matter. A Co-ordinate Bench, while
passing the interim order had directed the petitioner to deposit
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15588
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is submitted that the same is
withdrawn by the respondent herein.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder
submits that the amount that is paid by the petitioner/husband
i.e., an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is part of the maintenance
amount, but it is not permanent alimony as stated by the
petitioner herein. He submits that when the petitioner had an
opportunity, he did not take any steps to question the decree
directing him to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Even after
the execution petition is filed, the judgment debtor has not
moved his little finger and he has not taken any steps. The
Executing Court has rightly held that it cannot go beyond the
decree.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record.
6. The Executing Court has passed the decree whereby
the permanent alimony of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is
awarded to the wife. According to the husband, has he has
already paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- even before the
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is awarded by this Court. If that is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15588
the case, the husband ought to have taken appropriate steps
by questioning the said order or by filing an appropriate
application before the very same court. But, the husband has
not chosen to do any of the same. The stand taken by the wife
is that, the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- paid is not towards the
permanent alimony but it is towards the settlement of
maintenance amount. All these issues, the Executing Court
cannot go into and the Executing Court considering all the
aspects has rightly held that it is beyond its jurisdiction. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with order of the Executing
Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, are closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
KMS
CT:BCK
