Mr Thammaiah V vs Ms Lavanya on 24 October, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION NO.41836/2017 (GM – FC)

BETWEEN:

MR. THAMMAIAH V
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI.VENKATAPPA
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.L-87
CORPORATION BUILDING
VIDYA MANDIRA, NEW TOWN
BHADRAVATHI – 577 301
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NARAYANA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MS. LAVANYA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O MR.THAMMAIAH V
PRESENTLY R/AT C/O
V.CHOWDAMMA
1ST CROSS, NO.2 PALASANDRA LAYOUT
KOLAR – 576 001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH/DECLARE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE
RESPONDENT HEREIN IN CMC NO.112/2016 ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT FAMILY COURT AT KOLAR UNDER SECTION 125 OF
2

CR.P.C. R/W SEC.20[3] OF HINDU ADOPTION AND
MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 [ANNEXURE – A] AS ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the

proceedings in CMC.No.112/2016 filed by the

respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. be quashed.

2. The petitioner is father of the respondent. The

respondent claiming that she is unable to maintain

herself has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

r/w Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act, 1956. The petitioner herein has

appeared in the said proceedings and filed objection

statement. In the instant petition, petitioner seeks that

the proceedings be quashed, as the petition of the

present nature before the court below is not

maintainable.

3

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied

on the order dated 20.06.2009 passed in

C.Misc.No.762/2006(Annexure-E) to point out that the

said petition had been dismissed as not maintainable

and as such, the present petition is not sustainable.

3. In addition, it is contended that the

respondent, who is a major daughter, cannot seek

maintenance from the petitioner. Even if, the

contentions, as put forth by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is taken note, I am of the opinion that the

same does not give room for this Court to interfere a

petition of the present nature to quash the proceedings.

4. In so far as the relationship between the

parties, there is no serious dispute. In that

circumstance, whether the respondent is entitled to

maintenance and in that light, whether the earlier

petitions filed by the respondent being dismissed is the
4

sole basis to deny maintenance in the present

proceedings are matters which would arise for

consideration before the court below and the

circumstance, under which the respondent is presently

seeking for maintenance is also an aspect which is to

be taken note based on the evidence that would be

tendered before the court below.

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion the

instant petition need not be entertained by this Court,

at this juncture. However, all the contentions of the

petitioner are left open to be urged on merits in the

proceedings before the court below.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Psg

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *