Dismissed

Malike Saba, v. Sameer Hamsa Ramla

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024WP/3456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 by a wife challenging an interim maintenance order for her minor child. The court held the petition was not maintainable and could not be converted into a Section 482 CrPC petition, allowing leave to file the appropriate application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to file appropriate application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Malike Saba, Vs Sameer Hamsa Ramla — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9490 WP No. 3456 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 3456 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MALIKE SABA, W/O SAMEER HAMSARAMLA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT APARTMENT NO.3067, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN, ITPL ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 048, MOBILE - 9837613777.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. EHTASHMUL HAQUE, GPA HOLDER)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SAMEER HAMSA RAMLA, S/O LATE A. HAMSA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT 1161, COLFAX AVENUE, DES PLAINES, IILINOIS, USA - 60016

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. DEEPA JOY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE / MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/01/2024 PASSED IN CRL.R.P. NO. 38/2023 BY THE HONBLE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9490 WP No. 3456 of 2024

¶19

VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A WHICH REDUCES INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF MINOR CHILD FROM RS. 50,000/(RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND) TO RS. 25,000/- EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2023 AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition is filed questioning the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.38/2023, which is filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The court below by order impugned,

¶24

partly allowed the revision petition and the petitioner / husband is directed to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the child from the date of interim application. This order is passed by revising the order of the court below wherein the maintenance of Rs.50,000/- is granted.

¶25

Party in person submits that in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'HARBANSLAL

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9490 WP No. 3456 of 2024

¶27

SAHNIA AND ANOTHER VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.', (2003) SCC 107, 'GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. VS. EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER & ORS.', (2023) SCC ONLINE SC 95 AND PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS', (1998) 5 SCC 749 , the writ petition before this court is maintainable. Party in person further submits that inspite of having the alternative remedy; still he can come up before this court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the aforesaid contention stating that the petition is not maintainable before this court. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

The judgments that are cited by the party in person do not apply to the facts of this case where while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the court below passed an order, the writ petition before this court is not

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:9490 WP No. 3456 of 2024

¶31

maintainable. He has to file an appropriate application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶32

At this juncture, it is submitted by the party in person that the same petition may be converted into a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that also is not possible

¶33

for the reason that the manner in which the writ petition is drafted as it is it cannot be converted into a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application as per the remedy available under law.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT:SNN

Malike Saba, v. Sameer Hamsa Ramla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malike Saba, v. Sameer Hamsa Ramla

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

The Divisional Controller Vs Jayaram

Ms Pallavi K B Vs Mr Balaso Mahadev Babar

Sri. Chandra Reddy. R Vs Sri. v. Veluswamy

Vanajakshi Vs Imtiyaz Ulla

Sri Jagadeesh @ Javaraiah Vs Praveen Kumar

The Claim Manager Vs Eramma