The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an interim maintenance order and direct payment of maintenance, noting that the underlying family court proceeding was already disposed of, rendering the petition non-survivable.
The writ petition was disposed of as the underlying matter was already disposed of by the Family Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.24592/2012 (GM-FC)
Between:
Petitioner No.2 is minor Rep. by 1st petitioner Mother and guardian
Both are residing at R/at 780, 9th Cross 6th Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010 … Petitioners
(By Ms. Shobha Bhavikatti, Adv.)
And :
S Ramesh Aged about 37 years S/o R Selvaraj R/at 37/6A, Meeane Layout Tank Road Cross Bangalore – 560 042 … Respondent
(By Sri N Devaraj, Adv. for M/s. DMS Assts.)
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.08.2011 on IA.No.2 in C.MIS No.374/2010 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore vide Annx-F and direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as interim maintenance from the date of the application IA No.2 dated 26.07.2010 in C.Misc 374/2010 pending before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R
The instant petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.08.2011 passed on I.A.No.2 in C.Misc.374/2010.
it is pointed out that C.Misc.No.374/2010 itself stands
disposed of before the Family Court. Hence, the petition does not survive for consideration. If at all the need arises, the petitioners can urge the grounds in an appropriate proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hrp/bms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition assailing the interim maintenance order should be considered given that the underlyingMiscellaneous case was already disposed of by the Family Court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kathyayini
Prem Sai
S Ramesh
A S BOPANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
