Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 72 (KAR)

Sunandh Selvaraj v. Amitha Gilbert

2010-01-18

RAVI MALIMATH

body2010
Judgment :- (1) The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition interim maintenance at a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded. The same is being paid since 2005 regularly to the respondent. Thereafter, on contest the petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. was allowed and maintenance has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month from the date of the petition and that the interim maintenance paid shall be deducted out of the maintenance awarded. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed the present Petition. (2) Sri. Satish G. Raikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that an error has been committed by the lower Court in passing the impugned order and hence, interference is called for. He contends that the petitioner has filed the Petition before the very same Court seeking divorce in M. C. No. 837/2005 under Section 10(vii), (x), 19 (4) and 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, ostensibly on the ground of adultery, cruelty and non-consummation of marriage. He further contends that the said M. C. No. 837/ 2005 was being considered in tandem with C. Misc. No. 186/2005. He, therefore, contends that in view of the rival contentions of both the parties and in view of the fact that serious allegations have been made in both the Petitions they were being considered simultaneously. The Court below bifurcating the two cases and passed an order of maintenance, which is not appropriate in the given circumstances of the case. (3) Sri Sampat Bapat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, defends the impugned order inasmuch as he submits that there is no error committed by the trial Court that calls for interference. He contends that keeping in mind the income of the petitioner a sum of Rs. 12,000/- has been awarded which does not call for any interference. On the other hand, he submits that recklessly, unnecessary allegations have been made against the respondent which is pending consideration in M. C. No. 837/2005. He, therefore, submits that irrespective of the contentions in M. C. No. 837/2005 the present Petition is to be considered independently. He contends that the Court below considering the income of the petitioner has awarded maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- which itself is meagre. He, therefore, submits that irrespective of the contentions in M. C. No. 837/2005 the present Petition is to be considered independently. He contends that the Court below considering the income of the petitioner has awarded maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- which itself is meagre. Therefore, the maintenance awarded is appropriate. (4) I have heard both the counsels. (5) It is an admitted position that the parties are facing M. C. No. 837/2005 for divorce and necessarily it has a bearing on the present Petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. Sri Bapat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no judicial order to club both the matters. But, however, submits that both the matters were being heard on the same day. It, therefore, pre-sup-pose that the trial Judge was concerned with hearing both the matters together and that is why a common date was given for both the petitions. The approach of the trial Court in hearing the matters together is just and reasonable. However, the present C. Misc. No. 186/2005 has been considered independently by traversing various contentions and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. Irrespective of the contentions and the finding recorded by the trial Court I' am of the considered view that the present Petition should have been heard along with M. C. No. 837/2005 and appropriate orders be passed on both the petitions. This would be required especially in view of the serious allegations being made against one another in the said case and also in view of the amounts awarded towards maintenance. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to set aside this order and direct the Court below to consider both the matters afresh while considering M. C. No. 837/2005. (6) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that till the disposal of C. Misc. 186/2005 along with M. C. No. 837/ 2005, he undertakes to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- till its disposal. The undertaking made is placed on record. (7) Sri Bapat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that there was no judicial order for clubbing of the cases together. Accepting his contention I' am of the considered view that the trial Court had initially been hearing the matters together which was the right approach to be taken in that matter. The undertaking made is placed on record. (7) Sri Bapat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that there was no judicial order for clubbing of the cases together. Accepting his contention I' am of the considered view that the trial Court had initially been hearing the matters together which was the right approach to be taken in that matter. The proceedings being summary in nature a greater burden is cast on the Court to ensure that the rights of the parties are not trampled or diluted by technicalities of law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is unsustainable. Therefore, in view of the undertaking being given by the petitioner that he will continue to pay regular maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month subject to the final orders being passed the Court below is directed to hear M. C. 837/2005 together with C. Misc. 186/2005 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.