Karnataka High Court
Sri Sridhara S vs Smt Rashmi N on 25 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22152
WP No. 111 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRIDHARA .S,
S/O. SHEKARAPPA. P.S.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.12,
MANGALA, 1ST FLOOR,
100 FEET ROAD, III STAGE,
BANASHANKARI,
OPP. AYODHYA UPACHAR HOTEL,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RASHMI .N,
W/O. SRIDHARA,
D/O. B.B. NAGARAJU,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
by MEGHA RESIDING AT RAMESHWARA NILAYA,
MOHAN MACHIDEVA MARGA,
Location: HIGH KALYANANAGARA,
COURT OF JYOTHINAGARA POST,
KARNATAKA CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.R. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN M.C.NO.13/2023 ON IA.NO.7 DTD 25.09.2024
MARKED AT ANNX-E TO THE WP AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22152
WP No. 111 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order
passed in I.A.No.7 in M.C.No.13/2023 dated 25.09.2024 by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, the husband is
before this Court.
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for
the sake of convenience.
3. It is the case of the husband that initially he had
filed MC.No.116/2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights that
came to be dismissed, wherein the Family Court had directed
the husband to pay the maintenance of an amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner/husband had preferred an
appeal against the said order. Thereafter, even before
preferring the MFA, the husband had filed MC.No.13/2023
seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is the case of the
wife that the husband has not paid the maintenance as per the
order passed by the Family Court and he is again pursuing both
NC: 2025:KHC:22152
HC-KAR
MFA and MC petitions and as such an application is filed to
strike off the pleadings. The Family Court relying on an order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.11721/2020 in case of H.P.
Komala Vs. N. Ravikumar dated 29.07.2024 had stayed all
further proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/
husband submits that when an application is filed for striking of
the pleadings, the Family Court was not right in staying all
further proceedings and the order that is passed is beyond the
scope of the application and the same needs to be interfered by
this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife
submits that when an order is passed by the Court and the
same is not complied with, they have come up before the Court
with the instant application. It is further submitted that the
Family Court had rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in
H.P.Komala's case referred supra and passed an order
whereby the Family Court had stayed all further proceedings till
the arrears of maintenance are paid by the petitioner. It is
further submitted that there is no illegality with the order.
NC: 2025:KHC:22152
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the application filed to strike off
the pleadings is beyond the scope of the provision and the
order of stay that is granted by the Family Court is beyond the
prayer that is sought in the I.A. and as such the same needs to
be set aside. This Court do not find any force in the argument
of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court in H.P.
Komala's case, referred supra had discussed the manner in
which the orders of the Court were violated and how the parties
at one stretch are not complying with the orders of the Court
and on the other hand they want the Court to pass orders as
per the relief prayed by them. It is appropriate to extract
paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment which reads as
follows;
"10.This court is coming across several cases where
the husband will not pay the maintenance as
ordered by the court and which attains finality
but he insists for proceeding with the main
case. The CPC provides for execution of the
orders passed by the court. No doubt there is
mechanism provided for execution of the
orders. In these pending matrimonial matters,
NC: 2025:KHC:22152
HC-KAR
when the order is passed for maintenance
pendentilite, the party who is contesting the
matter cannot tell the opposite party that he
will proceed with the case and he can go before
the executing court for recovery of money. In
matrimonial cases thousands of execution
petitions are pending. In some cases the
parties are not in a position to meet their basic
necessities and the opposite parties inspite of
not obeying the orders of the court are
enjoying the further orders passed by the
court. In these matrimonial proceedings, the
court while exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 151 of CPC and under Order 6 Rule 16
of CPC should either stay the proceedings or
strike off the pleadings. This to some extent
will subserve the ends of justice. It will also
send a message to the concerned that they
cannot get away with non-compliance of the
orders of the court and demise of the other
party of the fruits of the order.
11. In the light of the above discussion, this court
is of the view that the trial court failed to
exercise the discretion vested with it under
Section 151 of CPC for doing substantial justice
to the parties.
Accordingly, the following order:
i. The order passed on I.A. in
MC.No.1694/2016 dated 17.02.2020 by
NC: 2025:KHC:22152
HC-KAR
the III Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru is set
aside and there shall be stay of all further
proceedings in MC.No.1694/2016 till the
arrears of maintenance are paid.
ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed.
iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand
closed."
7. In this case, when the party had failed to adhere to
the orders passed by the Family Court and admittedly there is
no stay granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the MFA.
husband is bound by the order and when he is not paying the
maintenance to the wife, the Court exercising the inherent
powers under Section 151 of CPC, in the process of doing
substantial justice to the parties had stayed the further
proceedings and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere.
At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that he is ready to pay the entire arrears within a
period of eight weeks. In that view of the matter, this Court is
passing the following:
ORDER
i. The impugned order passed in I.A.No.7 in
M.C.No.13/2023 dated 25.09.2024 by the
NC: 2025:KHC:22152
HC-KAR
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru,
is set aside on the condition that the petitioner
shall deposit the maintenance amount within
eight weeks.
ii. If the amount is not deposited within eight
weeks, the further proceedings shall be stayed.
iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
