Partly allowed

Sri.Dinesh S v. Smt. T S Vidya

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/8101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged an execution order directing payment of arrears and future maintenance under a Domestic Violence Act maintenance order. The High Court held an execution petition covers only arrears existing when filed, set aside the future maintenance component, and partly allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 02.03.2022 in C.Misc.29/2016 set aside as regards recovery of future maintenance of Rs.3,60,000; arrears already paid stand.

Sri.Dinesh S Vs Smt. T S Vidya — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13129 WP No. 8101 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8101 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.DINESH.S., S/O SRINIVAS NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.157-A, SRIRANGA NILYA, NEAR VARTHAKARA BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. T.S.VIDYA, D/O T.S.SATHYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.3042, 18^TH CROSS, NEAR KAVERI CIRCLE, 2^ND STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSORE - 570 016.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2022 PASSED IN C.MISC.29/2016 ON THE FILE OF HONBEL III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSORE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:13129 WP No. 8101 of 2022

¶19

VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY DISPOSE OFF THE C.MISC.29/2016 AS FULLY SATISFIED AND ETC,.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in C.Misc.No.29/2016 dated 02.03.2022 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶23

2. The respondent/wife had filed C.Misc.No.8/2012

¶24

dated 31.12.2015 under Section 12 of P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 seeking a direction to the husband to pay monthly maintenance Rs.20,000/- to her and to her child, Rs.2,00,000/- for accommodation and Rs.5,000/- towards damages to her and the child. The Court below by order dated 31.12.2015 had directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the child till he attains the age of majority

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13129 WP No. 8101 of 2022

¶26

and the husband was directed to pay Rs.5,000 as damages. Thereafter, the wife had filed C.Misc.29/2016 on

¶27

the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore, seeking a direction to the husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- towards arrears of maintenance and also to pay the future maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to her and Rs.2,000/- per month to her son and also Rs.5,000/- towards damages.

¶28

The husband had filed his objections resisting the petition. It is stated that in the execution petition the respondent cannot seek any future maintenance. The Court below by impugned order dated 02.03.2022 had directed to pay the arrears of maintenance of Rs.30,000/and future maintenance of Rs.3,60,000/in total Rs.3,90,000/- to be paid to the wife and the Court below had also observed that the husband had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/through DD.No.581706 under which Rs.10,000/- was paid by cash to the wife before the Court below. For balance payment the matter was directed to be

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:13129 WP No. 8101 of 2022

¶31

called on 24.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said order the husband is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that when the Court below had passed an order that the maintenance has to be paid from the date of order, they cannot seek from the date of the petition and it is further stated that for future maintenance, there cannot be any order from the Court and the order that is passed by the Court below is beyond the jurisdiction conferred on the Court.

¶33

It is submitted that husband had paid an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- before the Court below, as even if it is taken from the date of petition i.e., from January, when the order is passed in C.Misc.8/2012 it would be Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards damages, which they have complied with and the Court below has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing the husband to pay Rs.3,60,000/- as future maintenance. It is submitted that

¶34

by that time the order is passed, the wife had obtained

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13129 WP No. 8101 of 2022

¶36

divorce and she had not sought for any permanent alimony. It is further submitted that even under

¶37

Section.125 of CrPC. proceedings also he is paying maintenance to the wife and the child.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent/wife

¶39

submits that though he is paying the future maintenance, he had not paid the maintenance for the period from 2012 to 2015. He submits that when he had questioned the order passed by the Court below in C.Misc.8/2012 dated 31.06.2015 before this Court by filing RPFC No.87/2019, the same was dismissed by an order dated 22.01.2021 whereby this Court had confirmed the order of the Court below and also directed an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the wife and child towards the litigation expenses. He submits that as the said order had attained finalities he

¶40

has to continue to pay the amount to the petitioner and Court below had rightly granted the maintenance.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:13129 WP No. 8101 of 2022

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

¶44

perused the material placed on record. The petition for maintenance was filed in the year 2012 and maintenance was granted in the year 2015. Though there is no mention whether it is from the date of petition or from the date of order, it should be considered from the date of order as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. If it is considered from that date of petition, it would come to Rs.2,40,000/- towards the arrears of maintenance and Rs.5,000/- towards damages. In an execution petition

¶45

they can only seek direction for recovery of arrears of maintenance and as on the date when the petition is filed whatever the arrears the party can seek the recovery of the same and cannot seek any other relief in the execution petition. As on that date, it is Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.5,000/- i.e., Rs.2,45,000/-. It has been paid by the petitioner before the Court below. As far as any other payments that are due, it is always open to the party to file an appropriate petition and the Court below cannot pass any order of granting future maintenance.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:13129 WP No. 8101 of 2022

¶48

In view of the same, the order is set aside as far as the recovery of the future maintenance at

¶49

Rs.3,60,000/- is concerned. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is ' partly allowed' . All I.A's, if any, stands closed.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri.Dinesh S v. Smt. T S Vidya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Dinesh S v. Smt. T S Vidya

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

Sri Karthik K Vs the Hdfc Ergo General

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohini

Sri v K Venkatesha Murthy Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

B S Kumar Vs Smt. Hemavathi

Sri B K Krishnamurthy Vs D P Shruthishree

Suresha Vs Chandramma