Disposed

Sri B Hemanth Kumar Mehta v. Stmt Asha H Mehta

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024WP/6082/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a seven-year-old writ petition seeking quashment of a Family Court order staying matrimonial proceedings due to pending maintenance. Finding the husband now ready to pay arrears, the Court directed payment of accrued dues within insta lls and allowed the Family Court to proceed with the pending divorce suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay arrears of Rs.15,95,000 in three instalments by August 30, 2024, and continue monthly maintenance; matter remitted to Family Court.

Sri B Hemanth Kumar Mehta Vs Stmt Asha H Mehta — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25414 WP No. 6082 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6082 OF 2017 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.B.HEMANTH KUMAR MEHTA S/O LATE C.BHAWARLAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.G-1, SRI BALAJI COMPLEX, NO.125, SULTANPET BENGALURU- 560 053

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. ASHA H.MEHTA W/O SRI B.HEMANTH KUMAR MEHTA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.36, 71^ST CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU- 560 010

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. ASHA H.METHA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 PASSED ON I.A.19 IN M.C.2825/2007 PASSED BY V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE AT ANNEX-A AND ORDER DATED 6.1.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT ON I.A.21 PASSED BY V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IN M.C.2825/2007 AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR “DISMISSAL”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25414 WP No. 6082 of 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.21 in M.C.No.2825/2007 dated 06.01.2017 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Court below had dismissed the review petition filed by the husband to review the order passed in I.A.No.19 in M.C.No.2825/2007 dated 19.02.2016.

¶21

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶22

Before going into the merits of the matter, the litigation between the parties have started in the year 2007 when the husband had filed M.C.No.2825/2007 seeking divorce. In that, the wife had filed I.A.No.6 seeking maintenance that came to be ordered on 17.03.2011, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife. Questioning the said maintenance order, WP.No.15333/2011 is filed before this Court and that came to be dismissed on 30.03.2015. Thereafter, the wife had filed I.A.No.19 seeking stay of all further proceedings as the husband has failed to pay the

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25414 WP No. 6082 of 2017

¶24

maintenance and till the maintenance is paid, the proceedings should be stalled. That came to be allowed by order dated 19.02.2016, whereby the Court had directed the husband to pay the maintenance within one month or else he will not be permitted to proceed with the M.C. proceedings. In that, the husband had filed I.A.No.21 seeking review of the said order which came to be dismissed on 06.01.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the husband has filed the present writ petition.

¶25

The present writ petition is pending from the last seven years before this Court. When this matter came up on the last occasion, it is stated that the husband is 64 years old and the wife is 60 years old. The M.C. is pending from the date of order of maintenance that is granted in the year 2011, till now, no amount is paid. This Court on the last occassion had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to get specific instructions from his client as to why the amounts are not paid. Today, an affidavit is filed before this Court stating that the arrears of maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month granted by the Family Court in the year 2011 would come to an amount of Rs.15,95,000/- along with an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25414 WP No. 6082 of 2017

¶27

expenses. It is stated that the petitioner is ready to pay the said amount in three installments. It is stated that by 30.07.2024, the husband will pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by 15.08.2024 and he will pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,95,000/- by 30.08.2024.

¶28

The respondent/party-in-person submits that the affidavit is served on her today and with regard to other averments in the affidavit, she would like to file her objections. This Court has made it very specific that no objections need to be filed, as this Court has only calculated the amount that is due on the basis of admitted maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. The party-in-person also do not dispute the fact that the amount due is an amount of Rs.15,90,000/- and an amount of Rs.5,000/- is towards the cost and the total arrears would come to an amount of Rs.15,95,000/-.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/party-in-person, perused the entire material on record. In the year 2011, maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded to the wife by the Family Court and the same is not paid by the husband. The remedy

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25414 WP No. 6082 of 2017

¶31

available to the wife is to file an execution petition. Instead of filing an execution petition, she filed I.A.No.19 seeking stay of all further proceedings in M.C.No.2825/2007. The Family Court had allowed the same and review petition filed by the husband is dismissed. Against that, the writ petition is filed which is pending from the year 2017. When there is a procedure contemplated under the Act for the execution of any decree/order passed by the Court, every party is expected to follow the procedure. A party cannot take an exception to that procedure and cannot project their case to be a different, exceptional case and the case requires a different yard stick. A simple remedy where an execution petition can be filed, the whole litigation is going on right from the year 2011 till now. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a procedure ought not to have adopted by the Family Court and ought not to have passed an order. The parties should have been relegated to the effective remedy available. Presenting the case in this manner is not the appropriate way. However, now the husband has come forward to pay the amount and after all these years, what the wife wanted in the year 2011, has fructified. Accordingly, the following:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:25414 WP No. 6082 of 2017

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The petitioner/husband shall pay the arrears of maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,95,000/- to the wife by 30.08.2024 in three installments.

¶36

ii. The petitioner/husband shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by 30.07.2024, another Rs.5,00,000/by 15.08.2024 and the remaining Rs.5,95,000/- by 30.08.2024.

¶37

iii. The amount shall be transferred to the bank account of the wife and the wife shall furnish the details of the bank account to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

iv. The petitioner/husband shall continue to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife by 5^th of every succeeding month.

¶39

v. It is submitted that M.C.No.2825/2007 is dismissed as the maintenance amounts are not paid. Now, in the light of the amounts agreed and to be paid, the Family Court shall pass appropriate order on the pending M.C.130/2017 within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:25414 WP No. 6082 of 2017

¶42

vi. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶43

Pending I.As., if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri B Hemanth Kumar Mehta v. Stmt Asha H Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Hemanth Kumar Mehta v. Stmt Asha H Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zeenathunnissa Vs Nyamathulla Sharief

Sri Harish Poojari Vs Smt Sabitha

M/S Meta Arch Private Limtied Vs M/S Kleiber Modular System Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Shivanna S. @ Shivakumar Vs Smt. Manjula N. a.

Mr. Kumar v. Vs Mrs. Priyanka

Thrinethra H R Vs Smt Nayana D