Dismissed

Sri. Karnanda P Subbaiah v. Smt. Muthamma @ Shilpa

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2021WP/810/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a maintenance decree granted against the petitioner. The Court held that the challenge was limited to the quantum of maintenance rather than the duty to maintain, making it a matter for the Court that passed the decree under Section 24 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The petition was deemed devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; execution proceedings suspended for four weeks to allow petitioner to approach the court below.

Sri. Karnanda P Subbaiah Vs Smt. Muthamma @ Shilpa — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2020(GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KARNANDA P SUBBAIAH, S/O KK POONACHA, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.147, PID NO.1-14-147, WARD NO.1 BLOCK -14, SUBRAMANAYANAGAR, MADIKERI.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. MUTHAMMA @ SHILPA, W/O KARNANDA P SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶13

MASTER BENAKA BOJANNA K S, S/O KARNANDA P SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.2 IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MANGHALLI VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK – 571 218.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANKET M YENGAI, ADVOCATE; R2- MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH JUDGEMENT AND DECREE IN M.C.NO.81/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADIKERE DATED 24.03.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- A.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The challenge is to the judgment & decree dated 24.03.2017 made by the learned Sr. Civil judge, Madikeri, at Annexure-A in MC No.81/2016 filed by the respondents herein.

¶21

After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned Judgment & Decree and the reasons on which they are structured.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, no ground is taken as to the absence of duty to maintain; challenge is on the or quantum of amount/maintenance; petition is structured on the grievance as against the quantum of maintenance only. This aspect can be gone into by the Court which granted the impugned judgment & decree if an application is field under Section 24 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

¶23

¶24

The vehement contention of learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioner that the appeal filed by him in MFA No.10134/2018 (MC) has been disposed off by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as having been withdrawn vide order dated 13.01.2020, does not much come to his aid since it was his case that appeal was not maintainable; no adjudication on this point has been done; therefore, he is not justified in seeking shelter under the said order of learned Coordinate Judges.

¶26

In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy.

¶27

To enable the petitioner to move the Court below, the executing Court is requested to keep the subject Execution Proceedings in a suspended animation for a period of four weeks. All contentions barring the ones treated hereinabove are kept open.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Bsv

Sri. Karnanda P Subbaiah v. Smt. Muthamma @ Shilpa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Karnanda P Subbaiah v. Smt. Muthamma @ Shilpa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Suvarnamma Vs Ramaswamy

Mr. Miraj Mehta Vs Mrs. Nidhi Shah

Mr Miraj Mehta Vs Mrs Nidhi Shah

Shanthi Charitable Trust (Registered) Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs Cpio Central Public Information Officer