Quashed

Praveen R v. Kum Thvishikka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2024WP/695/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, on a joint petition by the husband and wife, quashed an interim maintenance order for lack of reasoning and non-application of mind regarding the consideraton of assets, and directed reconsideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.12.2022 directing maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- and litigation expenses is quashed. The lower court is directed to reconsider the application within an outer limit of four weeks.

Praveen R Vs Kum Thvishikka — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:619 WP No. 695 of 2023 C/W WP No. 1379 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 695 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶10

IN W.P.NO.695/2023

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

PRAVEEN R, S/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO.844, 23^RD A CROSS, 22^ND MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-2, BENGALURU – 560 102.

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

KUM. THVISHIKKA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINOR D/O PRAVEEN R AND B.K. ROOPA, RERPESENTED BY HER MOTHER B.K. ROOPA, R/O NO.23, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, SHANTI NIVAS LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:619 WP No. 695 of 2023 C/W WP No. 1379 of 2023

¶19

ALSO R/AT NO.1413, SEETHA RESIDENCY, 12^TH CROSS, 1^ST D MAIN, BDA LAYOUT, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI.B.S.GURUDATH, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VITH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, ON I.A.NO.IV IN CRL.MISC.NO.434/2021 AS CONTAINED UNDER ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶23

IN W.P.NO.1379/2023

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

KUM. THVISHIKKA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, MINOR D/O PRAVEEN R AND SMT.B.K. ROOPA, R/AT NO.23, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, SHANTI NIVAS LAYOUT, GOPI FARM, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 060. MINOR RERPESENTED BY HER MOTHER B.K. ROOPA.

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. GURUDATH B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:619 WP No. 695 of 2023 C/W WP No. 1379 of 2023

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI.PRAVEEN R, S/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO.844, 23^RD A CROSS, 22^ND MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-2, BENGALURU – 560 102.

¶32

…RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 5.12.2022 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE BENGALURU IN C.MISC.434/2021 ON IV BY ALLOWING AS PRAYED IN THE SAID PETITION I.E., AWARDING 10,000/- AS INTERIM MAINTENANCE PER MONTH AND 50 PERCENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL AND MISC EXPENSES ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION OR ALTERNATIVE PRAYER AWARDING 20,000/- PER MONTH AS INTERIM MAINTENANCE INCLUSIVE OF EDUCATIONAL MEDICAL AND MISC EXPENSES OF THE CHILD AS ANNEXURE – C, DATED 05.12.2022.

¶35

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

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:619 WP No. 695 of 2023 C/W WP No. 1379 of 2023

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioner-husband is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.12.2022 passed on an application in Crl.Misc.No.434/2021 instituted by the wife invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

W.P.No.695/2023 is filed by the husband and W.P.No.1379/2023 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance that is granted.

¶40

Heard Sri. Hanumantharayappa K., learned counsel appearing for the husband, Sri. B.S. Gurudath, learned counsel appearing for the wife and have perused the material on record.

¶41

The petitioner in W.P.No.695/2023 is the husband and the respondent is wife. The two get married on 26.11.2007 and from the wedlock, a child is born on 05.09.2008. It transpires that the relationship between the couple flounders and on such floundering of the relationship, the mother institutes proceedings before the concerned court in Crl.Misc.No.434/2021 seeking maintenance at the hands of the husband. The concerned Court directs payment of maintenance

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:619 WP No. 695 of 2023 C/W WP No. 1379 of 2023

¶44

at Rs.8,000/- per month and one time litigation expense at Rs.5,000/-. The husband has called the said order in question.

¶45

This Court while entertaining these petitions, had restricted the payment of maintenance to Rs.5,000/- in place of Rs.8,000/- as was directed. The Maintenance thus was to be paid at Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the husband would submit that the entire maintenance is cleared.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the wife would submit that the maintenance is cleared except to the extent of Rs.10,000/- which remains. Be those submissions as they are.

¶48

The concerned Court while passing an order directing maintenance does not consider the assets and liabilities statement that was placed before the Court. The order does not bear any reason for grant of maintenance at Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as one time litigation expense. The order suffering from non-application of mind necessarily renders itself unsustainable and the unsustainability would lead to a direction to reconsider the application.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:619 WP No. 695 of 2023 C/W WP No. 1379 of 2023

¶51

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 05.12.2022 stands quashed. The application though has spent itself, shall be reconsidered by the concerned Court in Crl.Misc.No.434/2021 within an outer limit of 4 weeks and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH V. NEHA¹ .

¶52

For the aforesaid observations, these petitions stand disposed.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

SJK

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

¶56

1 (2021) 2 SCC 324

Praveen R v. Kum Thvishikka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen R v. Kum Thvishikka

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 .K. Sajan Aiyappa , Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

The Karnataka State Government Grade I Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaya Hospital Vs the Idfc First Bank Litd

Mr v Vinay Kumar Vs Balkrishna Livestock Breeders Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Koshy Varghese Vs Union of India

Guruprasad B Vs the Scheduled Tribe Welfare