Dismissed¶37

Sri Y N Siddesh v. Smt Y K Gowramma @ Dhanalakshmi

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2025WP/29220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), Lalitha Kanneganti J., 23.06.2025, WP No. 29220 of 2023 (GM-FC): husband/JDR's writ under Article 226 against Executing Court order in Ex.Case No.13/2022 dated 17.12.2022 attaching movables for recovery of Rs.4,000/- p.m. litigation expenses (I.A.No.II in M.C.No.98/2019) for 06.11.2019-09.06.2022; order unquestioned and final; no illegality; desertion/adultery pleas beyond scope; writ dismissed; Rs.50,000/- deposit transferred to Executing Court.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the amount in deposit is ordered to be forthwith transferred to the Executing Court. ¶37

Sri Y N Siddesh Vs Smt Y K Gowramma @ Dhanalakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21683 WP No. 29220 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 29220 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. Y.N. SIDDESH S/O NARAYANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT YADAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. Y.K. GOWRAMMA @ DHANALAKSHMI, W/O Y.N. SIDDESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT YADAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. SOHANI A. HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN EX. NO. 13/2022 PENDING ON THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARASIKERE VIDE ANNEXURE-C1 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE EX. NO. 13/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARASIKERE VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS THE SAME IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW 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:21683 WP No. 29220 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the order passed in Ex.Case No.13/2022 dated 17.12.2022, the JDR/husband is before this Court. The Family Court on I.A.No.II in M.C.No.98/2019 had passed an order whereby the husband is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife towards litigation expenses from the date of petition till disposal of the case.

¶25

The petition was filed on 06.11.2019 and later that came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.06.2022. Now the present execution is filed seeking the recovery of an amount of Rs.4,000/- from 06.11.2019 to 09.06.2022. The Court has observed that till 09.06.2022, when the M.C. is disposed of, till such time, the wife is entitled for the litigation expenses of Rs.4,000/- p.m. As the husband has failed to question the said order passed by the Family Court, the Executing Court had allowed this application by issuing the attachment of movables of the JDR if steps taken by 30.01.2023. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Stay was granted on 29.01.2024 on the condition that an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited before this Court by

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:21683 WP No. 29220 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the next date of hearing and it is submitted that the order of the Court is complied with.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/JDR submits that the wife had deserted the husband. She is living an adulterous life and in those circumstances, the husband is not liable to pay the litigation expenses. It is submitted that there is a scope for settlement. If the time is granted, they will settle the matter. It is submitted that in the year 2022 another M.C. was filed which is pending consideration.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ wife submits that no amount is paid to her, except Rs.50,000/which was deposited before this Court. When the order that is passed by the Court fixing Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses is not questioned, it is not open for the husband to raise that ground now. During the pendency of the M.C., till 09.06.2022, the wife is entitled for the litigation expenses and the Court had rightly ordered the petition. It is submitted that as stated by the petitioner there is no scope for settlement.

¶32

Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court is concerned only with the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21683 WP No. 29220 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

order impugned and what is the illegality or infirmity with the order. The Court has passed a reasoned order giving the detailed reasons for passing such an order. The admitted facts in this case are that an order was passed granting litigation expenses of Rs.4,000/- per month. That order had attained finality as it was not questioned. Admittedly, on 09.06.2022, the M.C. was dismissed for non-prosecution. From the date of the petition till 09.06.2022, the wife is entitled for the litigation expenses at Rs.4,000/- per month. All other submissions which the learned counsel appearing for the husband is putting forth that cannot be considered by this Court and they are beyond the scope of this Writ Petition. This Court do not find any illegality with the order that is passed by the Executing Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The writ petition is dismissed . All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶38

(ii) Amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Executing Court.

¶39

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶40

KA, CT: BHK

Sri Y N Siddesh v. Smt Y K Gowramma @ Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Y N Siddesh v. Smt Y K Gowramma @ Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ravishankar K S Vs Smt. Ashwini K S

Sri Raghu @ Durgarpasad Vs Smt Yashoda

Sri Avin Chandran Vs Smt Usha Kumari @ Usha Pillai

Smt. Uma Vs Sri. a Banashankara

Mrs Swathi J Pai Vs Mr K Jayavanth Pai

Sri. Ashfaq Ahamed Vs Smt. Syeda Meenaz