Disposed

Mr Karthik Kamath v. Neethi D Nayak

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/25979/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought quashing of maintenance proceedings before Family Court, contending that after a divorce decree and permanent alimony award, the wife's Section 125 CrPC petition was not maintainable. The court declined to decide and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to raise grounds before the appropriate court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to raise all grounds before the appropriate court; IAs closed.

Mr Karthik Kamath Vs Neethi D Nayak — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39244 WP No. 25979 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 25979 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. KARTHIK KAMATH, S/O MOHAN KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. SHANTINIKETHAN, RADHAMOHAN APARTMENT, BEHIND KMC HOSPITAL, ATHAVAR, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

NEETHI D. NAYAK, D/O. V. DEVANAND NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. SHRI VINAYAK, DOOR NO.19/1520A, MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE -673 002.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARITCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MC.NO.9/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT D.K., MANGALURU (PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-F) TO THE WP AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:39244 WP No. 25979 of 2024

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶22

PRAYER

¶23

i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the entire proceedings in Crl.M.C.No.9/2019 pending on the file of the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru (produced vide Annexure ‘F’), to the writ petition and,

¶24

ii. Issue such other Writ, Order or Direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶25

INTERIM PRAYER

¶26

During the pendency of the above writ petition is just and necessary to stay all further proceedings in Crl.M.C.No.9/2019 on the file of the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru (produced vide Annexure ‘F’), to the writ petition and,

¶27

Pass such order or further interim Order or Direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39244 WP No. 25979 of 2024

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already a decree of divorce is granted by the Trial Court and against that he has filed MFA questioning the quantum of alimony of an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- and he has also deposited an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- before the Trial Court which the respondent herein has withdrawn. The respondent/wife has also filed an appeal before this Court and the same was pending before this Court. Earlier, when a Writ Petition is filed before this Court questioning 125 CrPC proceedings which are initiated by the wife, this Court by order dated 16.07.2024 had dismissed the same and also mentioned that if the petitioner has any other appropriate remedy, he is at liberty to pursue the same. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with this application before this Court stating that when once the permanent alimony is granted, the wife cannot maintain a petition under Section 125 of CrPC and it has to be an application under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. He submits that if at all they want any relief, they would have approached the Division Bench where the MFAs are pending but, an independent application is not maintainable. In the earlier Writ Petition, this Court had observed that the 125 CrPC

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39244 WP No. 25979 of 2024

¶31

proceedings were initiated even before the judgment and decree is passed by the Court. Learned counsel is relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in case of Rakesh Malhotra

¶32

Vs. Krishna Malhotra¹ . Basing on this, the learned counsel submits that the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC itself, is not maintainable. This Court while dismissing the matter, had given the petitioner a liberty to avail the appropriate remedy. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the Trial Court cannot terminate the proceedings which this Court is not able to appreciate. If a particular application is not maintainable before the Court, on that ground if an application is filed by the respondent bringing all the facts to the notice of the Court, it is the duty of the Court to consider the same and pass orders. Whatever the grounds that are raised before this Court, the petitioner ought to have raised the same before the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that instead of relegating the parties to the Trial Court, the same can be decided by this Court. That submission also this Court is not able to consider and appreciate. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶33

1 (2020) 14 SCC 150

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39244 WP No. 25979 of 2024

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the appropriate Court.

¶37

ii. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶39

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mr Karthik Kamath v. Neethi D Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Karthik Kamath v. Neethi D Nayak

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

Sri. Naveen Kumar J Vs Smt. R. Shruthi

Sri B Parashurama Vs Smt Kamalamma

Sri R K Arun Vs Smt Saraswathi

Sri T Rame Gowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Smt K N Madhu Vs Smt Gangamma

Sri Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs Pragya Yadav