Dismissed

Sri. C Manjunath v. Smt. Arpitha

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2023WP/355/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner husband challenged an interim maintenance order and the Family Court's divorce petition decision. Judge held that since the Family Court rejected the divorce petition due to settlement, the writ petition does not survive for consideration and rejected it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected as it does not survive for consideration following the rejection of the divorce petition.

Sri. C Manjunath Vs Smt. Arpitha — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31990 WP No. 355 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 355 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. C MANJUNATH, S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22,BACHAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT NAGARATHNA S K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. ARPITHA, W/O C MANJUNATH, D/O D C NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27,BACHAHALLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI B.C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DODDABALLAPUR ON I.A.1 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN M.C.10029/2020 (OLD NO.28/2019) U/S 24 OF HM ACT, DATED 18.08.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:31990 WP No. 355 of 2021

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-husband assailing the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura on I.A.I filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.10029/2020 (Old No.28/2019), wherein the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent and her son.

¶22

During the pendency of this petition, the Family Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2022 rejected the petition filed under section 13(1)(Ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The order of the Family Court reads as under:

¶23

"Petitioner and respondents are present. Petitioner filed memo stating that they have settled their disputes out of court and petitioner is not interested to proceed the petition. Perused and heard, for the reason stated in an memo petition is rejected as not pressed."

¶24

In view of the same, this writ petition does not survive

¶25

for consideration. The same is accordingly rejected.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

BRN

Sri. C Manjunath v. Smt. Arpitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C Manjunath v. Smt. Arpitha

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

Sri. Gangadharaiah Vs Chandraiah

Rev Fr Alfred Mendonca Vs Ramakrishna Gowda

Smt. Rangamma Vs M/S. Rashi Developers

Sri L Siddappa Vs Sri Muniraju

Smt. Yellamma Vs State of Karnataka

Vasantha Vs the State of Karnataka