Writ petition filed by a married couple challenging the Family Court's order recalling a previous attachment of retirement benefits. The High Court held that the Family Court lacked power to recall its own order in quasi-criminal proceedings and set aside the impugned order.
Order dated 21.05.2024 in I.A. No. 5 set aside; writ petition disposed of.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:32359 WP No. 16694 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16694 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. SHIVANANJU S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AT SRI.CHAMARAJENDRA ZOO AS ASSITANT, INDIRANAGAR, MYSURU-570 010
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 21.05.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU ALLOWED I.A. 5 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO RECALL THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OF TERMINAL BENEFITS AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
NC: 2024:KHC:32359 WP No. 16694 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed questioning the order passed in I.A.No.5 in Crl.Misc.No.621/2021 dated 21.05.2024 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the Family Court had partly allowed I.A.No.5 filed by the respondent to recall the attachment order of retirement benefits of respondent, consequently, the Drawing officer of the respondent was directed to attach and sent an amount of Rs.16,63,873/- or 50% of the retirement benefits of the respondent which ever is less, to the Family Court after excluding the gratuity amount in the total retirement benefits payable to the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/wife is before this Court.
that gratuity is not attachable. On the said grounds, the husband prayed to recall the attachment order dated 07.03.2024. The wife had filed objections to the said application and then the Court had partly allowed the application. While allowing the application, the Court observed that the direction to the drawing officer to attach Rs.16,63,873/- or 50% of the retirement benefits of the respondent after excluding the gratuity amount will meet the ends of justice and accordingly allowed the application partly. Aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court.
recalled. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband also do not dispute the fact that such power is not vested with Court to review or recall the order passed. Only on the ground that the power is not vested to the Family Court to recall the said order and pass the further orders, the order passed in I.A.No.5 is set aside. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court had the power to recall its own order dated 07.03.2024 passed in quasi-criminal proceedings.
Whether the order passed in I.A. No.5 dated 21.05.2024 by the Family Court recalling the earlier attachment order could be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT VISHALAKSHI W/O SRI. SHIVANANJU
KUM.LIKITHA D/O SRI.SIVANANJU
SRI. SHIVANANJU S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
