Dismissed¶40

D. Harish v. R.M Mamatha

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2025WP/18148/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, WP No. 18148 of 2011 (GM-FC), Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, decided 17-07-2025: restoration of matrimonial case M.C.No.646/2005 refused for non-payment of maintenance arrears of Rs.2,70,000/-; application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC; conditional restoration upheld; writ under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed; interim maintenance to wife; Family Court Bengaluru; post-order conduct irrelevant to testing impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court had jurisdiction to pass an order imposing conditions, and to dismiss the restoration application, where the husband sought restoration of the petition without complying with the Court's order. ¶35

D. Harish Vs R.M Mamatha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26769 WP No. 18148 of 2011

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18148 OF 2011 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

D. HARISH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE G.V. DODDA RAMAIAH NO.623, 2^ND BLOCK, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 010

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

R.M MAMATHA W/O SRI D.HARISH, MAJOR “SANTHRUPTHI” , 10-5 30^TH MAIN, BTM II STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 076

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY MS.AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MISC.NO.36 OF 2010 FROM THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANALORE AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:26769 WP No. 18148 of 2011

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the order passed in Misc.No.36/2009 dated 20.11.2010 by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the husband is before this Court. An application was filed under Order IX Rule 4 of CPC to set aside the dismissal order dated 24.11.2009 passed in M.C.No.646/2005 and to restore the said petition. In the said M.C., the Court has passed an order granting interim maintenance to the wife. The Court has observed that the arrears of maintenance comes to an amount Rs.2,70,000/- and as the husband had failed to deposit the arrears of maintenance, but he has filed the Miscellaneous Petition seeking restoration of the M.C. The Court had dismissed it as the petitioner on one hand cannot disobey the orders of the Court and on the other hand, he cannot seek relief from the Court to set aside the dismissal order. Aggrieved thereby, the husband has come before this Court.

¶25

This Writ Petition is of the year 2011. From 18.07.2011, the matter was adjourned on several occasions and finally, the matter was sent to mediation and the same was returned as the respondent/wife has not appeared. Today,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26769 WP No. 18148 of 2011

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that again if some more time is granted, they will try to compromise, this matter which cannot be compromised from almost 16 years, on that ground, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/

¶30

husband submits that the husband is taking care of all the expenses of the wife, children and he has been taking care of the educational of the children. The wife is residing in the house which belongs to the husband. When he is taking care of all the requirements of the wife, the Court ought not to have passed such an order imposing the condition that unless and until the arrears are cleared, the M.C. cannot be restored.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife

¶32

submits that the house in which the wife is staying belongs to the husband. But however with regard to the educational and other expenses as stated by the husband, the wife is disputing the same. No objections are filed by the respondent/wife.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26769 WP No. 18148 of 2011

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court has perused the order passed by the Court. As on the day, the order was passed, the arrears of maintenance was an amount of Rs.2,70,000/-. The Court has every jurisdiction to pass an order imposing conditions, when on one hand, the husband seeks restoration of the petition and on the other hand, he had not complied with the order of the Court. The Court had directed the husband to pay the arrears and on such condition being fulfilled, the M.C. would be restored. The submissions that were made by the learned counsel appearing the petitioner/husband with regard to taking care of the educational and other expenses, this Court cannot look into those things which are happening from 2010 after the date of the impugned order till now. The Court can only look at the order that was passed by the Court was right or not, as on the day that was passed. This Court has also looked at the grounds except saying that the order of the Court is arbitrarily, illegal and against the principle of natural justice, no other grounds are raised. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference is called for with the well considered order passed

¶36