Allowed

M S Sanju v. C v Veena Priyadarshini

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024WP/2940/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed four writ petitions filed by a husband challenging High Court Maintenance proceedings before the Mysore Family Court. Having confirmed that maintenance arrears were substantially paid with only a balance of Rs. 2,859/- outstanding, the Court allowed the writs and directed immediate payment of the token amount to the respondent's counsel.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petitions; directed the petitioner to immediately pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,859/- to the respondent's counsel.

M S Sanju Vs C v Veena Priyadarshini — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20190 WP No. 2940 of 2015 C/W WP No. 2941 of 2015 WP No. 2942 of 2015 WP No. 20187 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2940 OF 2015 (GM-FC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 2941 OF 2015 (GM-FC) WRIT PETITION NO. 2942 OF 2015 (GM-FC) WRIT PETITION NO. 20187 OF 2016 (GM-FC)

¶9

IN W.P.NO.2940/2015

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M.S. SANJU, S/O. SIDDALINGE GOWDA M.K., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.1376, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, K.M. PURAM, MYSORE-560 004.

¶13

(BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

C.V. VEENA PRIYADARSHINI, W/O. M.S. SANJU @ BALASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, C/O & D/O. B. BHAGYA, NO. 1281, 1ST CROSS, ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE CITY.

¶17

NOW AT NO.83, 1ST CROSS, NEXT TO GANAPATHY TEMPLE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20190 WP No. 2940 of 2015 C/W WP No. 2941 of 2015 WP No. 2942 of 2015 WP No. 20187 of 2016

¶19

ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE-23.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. R. RASHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. RAGHUPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-K THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MIS.443/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MYSORE.

¶23

IN W.P.NO.2941/2015

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

M.S. SANJU @ BALASUNDAR, S/O. SIDDALINGE GOWDA M.K., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.1376, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, K.M. PURAM, MYSORE-560 004.

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

C.V. VEENA PRIYADARSHINI, W/O. M.S. SANJU @ BALASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, C/O & D/O. B. BHAGYA, NO. 1281, 1ST CROSS, ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE CITY.

¶30

NOW AT NO.83, 1ST CROSS, NEXT TO GANAPATHY TEMPLE, ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE-23.

¶31

…RESPONDENT

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:20190 WP No. 2940 of 2015 C/W WP No. 2941 of 2015 WP No. 2942 of 2015 WP No. 20187 of 2016

¶34

(BY SRI. R. RASHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. RAGHUPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶35

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-K THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MIS.317/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MYSORE.

¶36

IN W.P.NO.2942/2015

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

M.S. SANJU, S/O. SIDDALINGE GOWDA M.K., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.1376, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, K.M. PURAM, MYSORE-560 004.

¶39

…PETITIONER

¶40

(BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

C.V. VEENA PRIYADARSHINI, W/O. M.S. SANJU @ BALASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, C/O & D/O. B. BHAGYA, NO. 1281, 1ST CROSS, ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE CITY.

¶43

NOW AT NO.83, 1ST CROSS, NEXT TO GANAPATHY TEMPLE, ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE-23.

¶44

…RESPONDENT

¶45

(BY SRI. R. RASHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. RAGHUPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:20190 WP No. 2940 of 2015 C/W WP No. 2941 of 2015 WP No. 2942 of 2015 WP No. 20187 of 2016

¶47

¶48

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-K THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MIS.47/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MYSORE.

¶49

IN W.P.NO.20187/2016

¶50

BETWEEN:

¶51

M.S. SANJU, S/O. SIDDALINGE GOWDA M.K., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.1376, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, K.M. PURAM, MYSORE-560 004.

¶52

…PETITIONER

¶53

(BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

C.V. VEENA PRIYADARSHINI, W/O. M.S. SANJU @ BALASUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, C/O & D/O. B. BHAGYA, NO. 1281, 1ST CROSS, ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE CITY.

¶56

NOW AT NO.83, 1ST CROSS, NEXT TO GANAPATHY TEMPLE, ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE-26.

¶57

…RESPONDENT

¶58

(BY SRI. R. RASHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.S. RAGHUPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶59

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-K THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MIS.556/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MYSORE.

¶60

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20190 WP No. 2940 of 2015 C/W WP No. 2941 of 2015 WP No. 2942 of 2015 WP No. 20187 of 2016

¶61

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

¶62

ORDER

¶63

These four Writ Petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders passed in Crl.Misc.Nos.47/2012, 317/2013, 443/2014, 556/2015 by the Principal Judge Family Court, Mysore. The W.P.Nos.2942/2015, 2941/2015, 2940/2015 and 20187/2016 are filed respectively. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶64

The respondent/wife had filed the above petitions for recovery of the maintenance amount from 08.02.2011 to 07.01.2012 at Rs.2,809/- per month i.e., Rs.30,896/-, from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013 at Rs.2,950/- per month i.e., Rs.35,000/-, from 30.08.2013 to 30.08.2014 at Rs.3,097/- per month i.e., Rs.38,190/- and from 26.09.2014 to 26.09.2015 at Rs.3,252.37/- per month i.e., Rs.40,023/-.

¶65

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that an affidavit is filed stating that as per the orders passed by the Court below, they have already paid an amount of Rs.3,14,560/- against an amount of Rs.3,17,419/- and the petitioner is only due of an amount of Rs.2,859/-. Petitioner is

¶66

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20190 WP No. 2940 of 2015 C/W WP No. 2941 of 2015 WP No. 2942 of 2015 WP No. 20187 of 2016

¶67

ready to pay the said amount of Rs.2,859/-, as such all these petitions are liable to be allowed. It is further submitted that on a petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2015, the Family Court had recalled the order of maintenance as the respondent is gainfully employed. It is submitted that the petitioner has to pay the maintenance amount between the year 2015 to 2017.

¶68

Learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that infact, all these calculations are till 2015 and thereafter he has not paid the maintenance, as such there shall be a direction to the husband to pay the said outstanding amounts.

¶69

This Court has perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein till 2015, except an amount of Rs.2,859/the amounts are paid and same is not denied by the respondent. The amounts that are sought to be recovered by virtue of these proceedings are only till 2015. If at all the petitioner is entitled for any amount between 2015 to 2017, it is always left open for her to pursue the remedies available for her and as far as these Writ Petitions are concerned, except an amount of Rs.2,859/-, the petitioner has paid the amounts. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are allowed. Recording the

¶70

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20190 WP No. 2940 of 2015 C/W WP No. 2941 of 2015 WP No. 2942 of 2015 WP No. 20187 of 2016

¶71

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, an amount of Rs.2,859/- will be paid by today itself to the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶72

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. All the pending I.A’s are disposed of.

¶73

SD/JUDGE

¶74

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M S Sanju v. C v Veena Priyadarshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Sanju v. C v Veena Priyadarshini

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

Suresh Babu B Vs Kavitha a

Sri. Anand. G Vs Smt. Vatsala Y @ Vatsala Raj

Aastha Verma Vs Rakshit Gaur

Achutha Institute of Technology Vs M/S Flow & Force Engineers

Mr. Anil Peter D Cunha Vs Mrs. Prafulla Flavia Miranda

Sri Ashok Kumar S Vs Dr Archana G