Allowed

Narasimhamurthy @ Murthy v. K v Rangamma

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2024WP/21322/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged an interim maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC favouring his wife and minor son, denying the marriage and seeking a DNA test. The High Court set aside the interim order but directed the Family Court to decide the maintenance case on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance order dated 06.09.2022 set aside; Family Court directed to dispose of maintenance case within six weeks.

Narasimhamurthy @ Murthy Vs K v Rangamma — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 21322 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NARASIMHAMURTHY @ MURTHY, S/O DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NAVILAHALLI VILLAGE, SWANDENAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 104.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVI A.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

K.V. RANGAMMA, W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY @ MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MANJUNATH N., S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY @ MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶16

MINOR REPRESENTED BY K.V. RANGAMMA I.E., THE PETITIONER NO.1,

¶17

BOTH ARE R/O NAVILAHALLI VILLAGE, SWANDENAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI,

¶18

TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 104.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. JYOTHI S.KEMPEGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 26.02.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 06.09.2022 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.236/2021 BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU ON I.A.NO.II FILED U/S 125(3) OF CRPC BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The present Writ Petition is filed before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.II in C.Misc.No.236/2021 by the Court of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru.

¶27

It is the case of the Respondents herein that the marriage between Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner was performed on 08.03.2005. Out of the wedlock, Respondent No.2 herein was born on 20.09.2008 and as on the date of the application, he is 13 years old. The Writ Petitioner is the husband, who is a BESCOM employee and also doing agriculture and earning more than an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Respondent No.1/wife has made several allegations against the Petitioner/husband, who has ill-treated her after the marriage. In this regard,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶30

a complaint was given and the case has been registered before the Tumakuru Rural Police Station, Tumkuru, in Cr.No.70/2006 against the Petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506, 420 Read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶31

It is further stated that earlier

¶32

C.Misc.No.228/2006 was filed before the I Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.D) and JMFC at Tumkur for maintenance against the husband and after the receipt of summons, the Petitioner/husband had started living along with the wife, then she has withdrawn the petition by filing a memo dated 27.06.2015 in C.Misc.No.152/2013. While the things were going on smoothly, again the husband has completely deserted her and had not taken care of them. Hence, Respondent No.1 filed a Petition in C.Misc.No.236/2021 before the Court of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru against the Petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking monthly maintenance of 30,000/- from the Petitioner.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶35

Objections were filed by the husband, wherein he had denied the relationship with respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein i.e., the wife and the son. According to the petitioner, he has not married Respondent No.1 herein and in fact he was married to one Bhagyamma on 01.06.1995 and out of the wedlock, they are blessed with two children. He was leading a happy life with his wife Bhagyamma and his children. He further contended that Respondent No.1 is an unknown person to him. It is stated that without there being any relationship, she has been filing the cases one after the other.

¶36

The Court below having considered the case of

¶37

both the Writ Petitioner as well as the Respondents, has observed that the wife has produced the school admission record of Respondent No.2 before the Court below, wherein it shows that the Writ Petitioner herein is the father of Respondent No.2 and further, the husband has not filed any document before the Court below to show that he has been married to another woman. Hence, the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶40

provision under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. being a social beneficial legislation meant for destitute women, children and parents, the Court below has passed an order making an interim arrangement for the Respondents for their survival during the pendency of the proceedings by directing the husband to pay interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the son. Aggrieved thereby, the husband is before this Court.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

Petitioner/husband submits that in the earlier round of litigation, when the application is filed for maintenance, he has asked for a DNA test to be done. At that point of time, the Petition was withdrawn by the wife. Now again, wife has come up with the present petition. According to the husband, the name Narasimhamurthy, which is mentioned in the school admission records of Respondent No.2 is not the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶45

that the Court below without appreciating the objection placed by him, has passed the order.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/wife submits that the earlier Petition which was filed by the wife was withdrawn as the husband had come back to her after the Petition was filed and also had taken care of the family. Later, when he again abandoned her and as she had no source of livelihood, it made her to come up with the present petition. Learned counsel submits that if the interim maintenance is not granted, it would be difficult for both the wife and the son to lead a normal life. The Court below had rightly granted the maintenance and whatever the objections that are raised, it would be considered by the Court while passing final orders in the said application. It is submitted that no interference is called for with the well considered order passed by the Court below.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶50

very relationship of husband and wife is denied by the husband/Writ Petitioner. At the stage of considering an interim application, the Court below without going into all those issues had rightly granted interim maintenance. Thus, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court and obtained an interim order on 23.11.2022. Right from 23.11.2022 till now, under the guise of interim orders passed by this Court, the husband has not paid any maintenance to the wife. Considering all these factors and when the husband and wife had gone to the extent of denying their marriage and saying that the DNA test has to be done, in these peculiar facts and circumstances, at this stage, vacating the interim order and dismissing the Writ Petition would not be appropriate.

¶51

In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Court below to decide the main application on the merits of it and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondents herein has been

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:7834 WP No. 21322 of 2022

¶54

surviving without any maintenance from 23.11.2011. Hence, this Court is not passing any order for interim maintenance during the pendency of the Petition before the Court below.

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 06.09.2022 passed in C.Misc.No.236/2021 by the Court of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru and the Court below is directed to dispose of the maintenance case i.e., C.Misc.No.236/2021 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶56

SD/JUDGE

¶57

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Narasimhamurthy @ Murthy v. K v Rangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasimhamurthy @ Murthy v. K v Rangamma

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

D.R. Annappa Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., and Ors.

The Divisional Controller Vs Khajabi and Anr.

The Principal and Ors. Vs Arjun and Ors.

Aruna G Vs Mahesh R v

Mr Adarsh Patil B S Vs Mrs Manasa Lekha

D Sukumar Vs R Gayathri @ Gayathri Devi.R.