Wife challenged the Family Court's Section 24 HMA decision granting her maintenance but none to the child. Noting an earlier writ petition had directed speedy disposal and that counsel admitted non-disclosure of it when the interim order was obtained, the High Court declined further indulgence and disposed of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8217 OF 2020 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SINDHU BOREGOWDA, S/O YASHWANTH BHASKAR B.P., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO. 226, R.K. STREET, SHESHADRIPURA, BENGALURU - 560 020.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. YASHWANTH BHASKAR B.P., S/O N. PUTTARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO. 1095, 9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH BLOCK, H.M.T. LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.B.S. MANIAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2020 PASSED BY VI ADDL. PRL. FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN M.C.NO.4301/2018 ON
NC: 2024:KHC:3082 WP No. 8217 of 2020
I.A.NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayers:
2. Further award maintenance to child and also enhance the maintenance and litigation expenses as prayed in application I.A. No.2.
3. And further grant any such other relief that this court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity."
the petitioner, Sri. K.B.S. Manian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:3082 WP No. 8217 of 2020
16.06.2014. It appears that the relationship between the two flounders and on floundering of the relationship, are before the concerned Court seeking annulment of marriage. The issue in
the lis does not relate to the merit of the claim of annulment of marriage or its defence. In the said petition, the wife files an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance. The Court considers maintenance to be awarded to the wife and nothing to the child. It is therefore, the wife is before this Court calling in question the said order dated 12.02.2020. The petition is filed on 17.06.2020. The matter was not even moved for it to be posted before the Court.
"In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, a Writ of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order. Learned Judge of the Court below is
NC: 2024:KHC:3082 WP No. 8217 of 2020
requested to organize cross examination/ further cross examination at the hands of the petitioner, subject to convenience of both the sides.
Learned Judge of the Court below is requested to try & dispose off subject Matrimonial Case preferably within an outer limit of four months.
Costs made easy."
was then listed on 08.12.2023. A submission was made that the concerned Court has posted the matter for its judgment without even considering the maintenance to be awarded to the child. It is then this Court directed that the concerned Court not to pronounce the judgment or defer pronouncement of judgment. The matter is listed today i.e., 23.01.2024.
making submissions when the interim order was granted. This is an admitted fact which is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.
Sd/JUDGE
SJK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:SNN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether maintenance awarded to the wife but denied to the child under Section 24 HMA should be reconsidered by the Family Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Sindhu Boregowda
Sri. Yashwanth Bhaskar B.P.
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
