Partly allowed

Smt Shilpa W/O Sachin Kumar Kanagali v. Dr Sachin Kumar Basavaraj Kanagali

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/100129/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash Family Court order dismissing Section 24 maintenance application. High Court observed petitioner later produced the three-year bank statement mandated by Supreme Court. Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration and evidence adduction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Impugned order set aside. Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration and evidence adduction after petitioner produces three years bank statement.

Smt Shilpa W/O Sachin Kumar Kanagali Vs Dr Sachin… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12649 WP No. 100129 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 100129 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. SHILPA W/O. SACHIN KUMAR KANAGALI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. #1, KOTHARI LAYOUT KUSUGAL ROAD, SHABARI NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580023.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

DR. SACHIN KUMAR BASAVARAJ KANAGALI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. APARTMENT NO.50, VALLEY PARK SOUTH, LANDINGS, BETHLEHEM, P.A. 18018, PRESENTLY R/O. N.460 E, MACADA ROAD, BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA-18017, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

¶9

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

SAROJA HANGARAKI

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LD. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI ON I.A. NO.II IN MC.NO.228/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE “A” TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶13

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12649 WP No. 100129 of 2022

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶17

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the

¶18

counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶19

In the present petition the prayer is sought to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi on I.A.No.II in M.C.No.228/2020 and pass such other order or direction as deems fit in the circumstance of the case.

¶20

The factual aspects of the case is that the petitioner has filed the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act praying the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per month to the petitioner towards the interim maintenance. The said application was opposed by the respondent by filing statement of objections. The Trial Court considering the contentions, framed a point for consideration as to whether petitioner has made out a ground to allow this application.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12649 WP No. 100129 of 2022

¶22

4. Having considered the grounds urged in the

¶23

application as well as the statement of objections, in paragraph No.11 the Trial Court taken a note of the prayer sought and also in paragraph No.12 discussed the relationship between the parties and there no dispute with regard to the marriage. It is also observed that though she

¶24

has stated that she is not working now, but she has purposely produced only the front sheet of the bank passbook and she has not produced entire passbook statement and also in assets and liability statements she has stated that three years bank account statement is furnished but she has failed to produce three years bank account statement. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, wherein it is held that both the parties have to furnish three years bank account statement, the Trial Court has observed that the respondent has not complied the guidelines of the Apex Court and hence comes to the conclusion that looking into the material and qualification and also work experience of

¶25

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12649 WP No. 100129 of 2022

¶26

the petitioner, the petitioner is able to maintain herself and she is not entitled for her maintenance and dismissed the application. Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.

¶27

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is erroneous also and the Family Court has failed to consider the object behind the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to prevent the vagrancy and restitution of deserted wife by the respondent to bring down her agony and financial sufferings and hence the reasoning has resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence the order requires to be quashed.

¶28

When this Court heard the matter earlier, directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce the bank statement and accordingly bank statement bearing Account No.3152500101543601 is produced before the Court and the observation of the Trial Court is also that

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12649 WP No. 100129 of 2022

¶30

three years bank statement is not produced. When this document is placed before this Court, counsel appearing for the respondent also contends that this document only discloses about receipt of the amount from by Bendigeri Textiles and the same is not pertaining to three years bank statement. This Court cannot sit and decide the disputed facts and hence it is appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and remit the matter to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh in view of filing of this bank statement. The reason assigned by the Trial Court is also that bank statement has not been produced and hence the petitioner is also directed to produce the bank statement before the Trial Court and if any evidence is also required to substantiate the same, the Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence on this document and if any other material placed before the Court. Hence, the matter requires to be reconsidered afresh and the order impugned is required to be set aside.

¶31

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12649 WP No. 100129 of 2022

¶32

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶33

the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

Impugned order at Annexure-A dated 26.11.2021

¶37

passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi on I.A.No.II in M.C.No.228/2020 is set aside.

¶38

The counsel for the petitioner is also given liberty to produce the three years bank statement and also comply the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha.

¶39

The Trial Court is also directed to give an opportunity

¶40

to both parties to adduce evidence, if any, if they choose

¶41

to lead evidence before the Trial Court.

¶42

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶43

SH, CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Shilpa W/O Sachin Kumar Kanagali v. Dr Sachin Kumar Basavaraj Kanagali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shilpa W/O Sachin Kumar Kanagali v. Dr Sachin Kumar Basavaraj Kanagali

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

Shri.Suresh S/O Ganapati Revankar Vs Smt.Hansaben W/O Natwarlal Singala

National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt Shoba Adivayya Soppimath W/O Adivayya Soppimath

Smt. M Bhagyamma W/O Chokkalakshmipati Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand Vs Gram Panchayat Mallapur

Basappa S/O Tippanna Vagathi Vs the Authorised Officer

The State of Karnataka Vs Riyaz