Disposed

J Gopinath v. Kousalya Gopinath

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024WP/22859/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged the family court's order allowing attachment and sale of his property in a maintenance execution petition. He deposited Rs.3,41,000 in arrears before the Registry pursuant to an interim stay. The High Court set aside the impugned order, quashed and closed the execution proceedings, and permitted the wife to withdraw the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned execution order set aside; execution proceedings quashed and closed; respondent No.1 permitted to withdraw the deposited Rs.3,41,000.

J Gopinath Vs Kousalya Gopinath — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11447 WP No. 22859 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 22859 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

J GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT #85, NARAYANAPPA BLOCK, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560032

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KOUSALYA GOPINATH, W/O J GOPINATH, R/T #32/A, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, (JYOTHI NAGAR CROSS ROAD), Digitally signed CHANDRA LAYOUT, by SUVARNA T BANGALORE - 560 040. Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. V C CHETAN, KARNATAKA

¶12

V C CHETAN, S/O GOPINATH, MINOR, REP. BY HIS MOTHER, (SMT. KOUSALYA GOPINATH), R/AT #32/A, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, (JYOTHINAGAR CROSS ROAD) CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040. (BY SRI A DHARMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:11447 WP No. 22859 of 2023

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. IV TH ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN EX.C.NO./211/2019 WHEREBY I.A NO. 3 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN UNDER ORDER XX1 RULE 54 OF THE CPC, 1908 FOR ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER HEREIN WAS ALLOWED WHICH IS AFFIXED AS ANNEXURE-N FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Ex.C.No.211/2019 dated 05.08.2023. The petitionerhusband is before this Court questioning the said order. Learned counsel submits that the Court below had ordered sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner and mentioning the dates as 07.09.2023 for the spot sale and for the Court sale by 12.09.2023. It is submitted that out of the wedlock, the parties were blessed with two children, one is a disabled child who is with the petitioner and died recently and the other son is with the respondent.

¶20

Learned counsel submit that the petitioner is not even permitted to see the child and she has been filed the petitions seeking execution of the order and by virtue of the

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11447 WP No. 22859 of 2023

¶22

same, the property is put to sale. It is stated that looking to the welfare of the child, there should be Joint Parenting Plan to include both mother and father. It is further submitted that as per the order passed by this Court on 14.02.2024, the proceedings in Ex.C.No.211/2019 is stayed and this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of maintenance within two weeks.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that as per the order of Execution Court, he deposited the arrears of maintenance at 3,41,000/- by way of a DD before this Court. It is submitted that the respondent cannot on one hand seek maintenance from the husband and on the other hand, she is not permitted him to see the child.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶25

submits that she is not interested in the sale of the property. What is she interested is to recover the money which is granted as arrears of maintenance. It is submitted that as the amounts are already deposited, the respondents may be permitted to withdraw the amount. Learned counsel has denied all the submissions made with regard to the respondent/wife not

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:11447 WP No. 22859 of 2023

¶28

permitting the husband to visit the child and it is submitted that, it is not the scope of enquiry in this writ petition.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, perused the material on record, the petitioner/husband has come before this Court questioning the order passed by the Execution Court, wherein the property was put to sale and subsequently, the proceedings were stayed by this Court on 14.02.2024 on the condition that husband shall deposit the money, for which, the execution petition is filed i.e., an amount of Rs.3,41,000/-.

¶30

In the light of the several submissions made by the both the parties, this Court is not inclined to go into any of these aspects as the scope of enquiry before this Court in this particular writ petition is only with regard to the execution proceedings that were ordered by the Court below.

¶31

In view of the fact that the amount is already paid by the petitioner and that is deposited before this Court by way of Demand Draft, the order impugned before this Court i.e., order passed in IA.No.8 dated 05.08.2023 needs to be set

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11447 WP No. 22859 of 2023

¶33

aside and all the pending execution petition proceedings in respect of this claim, shall stand closed.

¶34

Sri.A.Dharmesh, learned counsel has filed vakalath

¶35

on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off with the following observations:

¶37

i) As the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.3,41,000/- before the Registry, the execution petition that is filed and all the proceedings that are pending are quashed and closed.

¶38

ii) The respondent No.1/Wife is at liberty to withdraw the amount that is deposited.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

NR/-

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

J Gopinath v. Kousalya Gopinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Gopinath v. Kousalya Gopinath

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. I. G. Madhusudhan Rao Vs Smt. Ranjana. M

Shri Arunkumar H K Vs Smt Triveni C P

Smt. Tanuja Madhav Vs Sri. Raviraj Chedga

Smt Vaishnavi M Vs Srikanth R

Sri. Nasappa Vs Smt. Varalakshmi

Mr. N. Rajesh Kanna Vs Smt. K. Preethi