Partly allowed

Mrs Srirupa Roy v. Union of India

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2022WP/19085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Indian Navy authorities to reconsider the petitioner's application for maintenance, as the earlier rejection was based on pending legal proceedings that have since been withdrawn. The court mandated a hearing for the husband within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to obtain application on 22-07-2022 and pass appropriate orders within three months after notifying and hearing the husband.

Mrs Srirupa Roy Vs Union of India — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 19085 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19085 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS SRIRUPA ROY W/O HIMADRI SARKAR AGE 42 YEARS C/O S D ROY C 307 3RD FLOOR SLV SPRING FIELD APARTMENT MANYATA TECH PARK, NAGAVARA BENGALURU -560045

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. PREETI K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY) BY SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110011

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY) DIRECTORATE OF PERSONAL SERVICES NEW DELHI-110011

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 19085 of 2022

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22/07/2022 AT ANNEXURE - F.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner, wife of one Mr.Himadri Sarkar,

¶23

presently serving as Captain in the Indian Navy is before

¶24

this court seeking a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider her application submitted on 22.07.2022.

¶25

Heard Smt.Preeti K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Rajashekar S., learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 19085 of 2022

¶28

Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this court

¶29

in subject petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶30

The petitioner and one Himadri Sarkar, a Captain in the Indian Navy, get married on 02.02.2010. The narration in the petition is that due to constant torture from the husband, the petitioner deserts his company and moves away. Later petitioner files an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Civil Court at Hyderabad for grant of maintenance and also makes an application to the respondents again for grant of maintenance. Therefore two proceedings were taken up by the petitioner. Insofar as maintenance at the hands of respondent No.1, the same came be to be rejected, by order dated 30.05.2022 observing that the petitioner has already filed a petition seeking maintenance at the hands of the competent court invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and

¶31

¶32

WP No. 19085 of 2022

¶33

the matter being subjudice, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶35

submits that the petition in M.C.No.703/2022 wherein an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has since been withdrawn, the reason for rejecting the maintenance at the hands of the respondent No.1 no longer exists. She would submit that the representation should be considered from the date of her initial application that was made on 22.11.2021.

¶36

The learned counsel representing the respondents Sri.S.Rajashekar would submit that if reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered, as the husband who is required to pay the maintenance, is not made a party in this petition.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 19085 of 2022

¶39

In the light of the afore quoted facts and the

¶40

representation of the petitioner being for grant of maintenance from the hands of the husband, through the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 22.07.2022 in accordance with law. Since the husband of the petitioner is not a party to these proceedings, second respondent shall notify the husband of the petitioner, hear him, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶41

For the afore said reasons the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

1. Writ petition is disposed.

¶44

1. Second Respondent is directed to consider the application dated 22.07.2022 for the reason that it

¶45

is submitted and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the

¶46

¶47

WP No. 19085 of 2022

¶48

date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if not

¶49

earlier.

¶50

1. The husband of the petitioner shall be given an

¶51

opportunity of hearing.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SBN

Mrs Srirupa Roy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Srirupa Roy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Subha Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shri B C Manjappa Shetty Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Sri Rahul Chari Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Creative Aromatics Specialties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Megha Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Ltd.

Mr. B S Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka