Sri Sridhara S Vs Smt Rashmi N

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:22152 WP No. 111 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SRIDHARA .S, S/O. SHEKARAPPA. P.S., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, MANGALA, 1^ST FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD, III STAGE, BANASHANKARI, OPP. AYODHYA UPACHAR HOTEL, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. RASHMI .N, W/O. SRIDHARA, D/O. B.B. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESHWARA NILAYA, MACHIDEVA MARGA, KALYANANAGARA, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 102.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN M.C.NO.13/2023 ON IA.NO.7 DTD 25.09.2024 MARKED AT ANNX-E TO THE WP AND ETC.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:22152 WP No. 111 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.7 in M.C.No.13/2023 dated 25.09.2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, the husband is before this Court.

¶25

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

¶26

It is the case of the husband that initially he had filed MC.No.116/2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights that came to be dismissed, wherein the Family Court had directed the husband to pay the maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner/husband had preferred an appeal against the said order. Thereafter, even before preferring the MFA, the husband had filed MC.No.13/2023 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is the case of the wife that the husband has not paid the maintenance as per the order passed by the Family Court and he is again pursuing both

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:22152 WP No. 111 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

MFA and MC petitions and as such an application is filed to strike off the pleadings. The Family Court relying on an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11721/2020 in case of H.P. Komala Vs. N. Ravikumar dated 29.07.2024 had stayed all further proceedings.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband submits that when an application is filed for striking of the pleadings, the Family Court was not right in staying all further proceedings and the order that is passed is beyond the scope of the application and the same needs to be interfered by this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife

¶33

submits that when an order is passed by the Court and the same is not complied with, they have come up before the Court with the instant application. It is further submitted that the Family Court had rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in H.P.Komala 's case referred supra and passed an order whereby the Family Court had stayed all further proceedings till the arrears of maintenance are paid by the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no illegality with the order.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:22152 WP No. 111 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶38

perused the material on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed to strike off the pleadings is beyond the scope of the provision and the order of stay that is granted by the Family Court is beyond the prayer that is sought in the I.A. and as such the same needs to be set aside. This Court do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court in H.P. Komala ’ s case, referred supra had discussed the manner in which the orders of the Court were violated and how the parties at one stretch are not complying with the orders of the Court and on the other hand they want the Court to pass orders as per the relief prayed by them. It is appropriate to extract paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment which reads as follows;

¶39

“10.This court is coming across several cases where the husband will not pay the maintenance as ordered by the court and which attains finality but he insists for proceeding with the main case. The CPC provides for execution of the orders passed by the court. No doubt there is mechanism provided for execution of the orders. In these pending matrimonial matters,

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:22152 WP No. 111 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

when the order is passed for maintenance pendentilite, the party who is contesting the matter cannot tell the opposite party that he will proceed with the case and he can go before the executing court for recovery of money. In matrimonial cases thousands of execution petitions are pending. In some cases the parties are not in a position to meet their basic necessities and the opposite parties inspite of not obeying the orders of the court are enjoying the further orders passed by the court. In these matrimonial proceedings, the court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC should either stay the proceedings or strike off the pleadings. This to some extent will subserve the ends of justice. It will also send a message to the concerned that they cannot get away with non-compliance of the orders of the court and demise of the other party of the fruits of the order.

¶44

11. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the trial court failed to exercise the discretion vested with it under Section 151 of CPC for doing substantial justice to the parties.

¶45

Accordingly, the following order:

¶46

i. The order passed on I.A. in MC.No.1694/2016 dated 17.02.2020 by

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:22152 WP No. 111 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the III Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside and there shall be stay of all further proceedings in MC.No.1694/2016 till the arrears of maintenance are paid.

¶51

ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed.

¶52

iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand

¶53

closed.”

¶54

In this case, when the party had failed to adhere to

¶55

the orders passed by the Family Court and admittedly there is no stay granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the MFA. husband is bound by the order and when he is not paying the maintenance to the wife, the Court exercising the inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC, in the process of doing substantial justice to the parties had stayed the further proceedings and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is ready to pay the entire arrears within a period of eight weeks. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57