1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.17553/2018 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MR. MANOHAR C. SOLANKI,
S/O. SRI CHAMPALAL B. SOLANKI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.S1/12, KRISHNA ENCLAVE,
SOUTH PARK ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 020. … PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS. SANJUKTA M. SOLANKI,
W/O. MR. MANOHAR C. SOLANKI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O. NO.364, 1ST CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE – 560 094. … RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.3.2018 PASSED ON I.A.18 ON APPLICATION
FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EX.76/2014 AT ANNEXURE-
A; DISMISS THE APPLICATION I.A.18.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Mr. Manohar C. Solanki, the petitioner, has challenged the
legality of the order, dated 22.3.2018, passed by the First
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the
learned Family Court has directed the petitioner – decree holder
to pay the school fees of the minor child, Kumari Dhriti Solanki,
at the rate of `50,000/- directly to the school, where the minor
child is studying, and to produce the receipt before the Court.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 23.1.2007, the
petitioner, Mr. Manohar C. Solanki was married to Ms. Sanjukta
M. Solanki, the respondent, according to the Hindu rites and
customs. According to the petitioner, even at the initial stage of
the marriage life, the marriage was on the rocks. Allegedly, on
14.3.2008, the respondent suddenly left the matrimonial home,
and went back to her parental home in Kolkata. While at
Kolkata, she filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, and
his relatives for offence under Section 498A of IPC. In 2008,
itself, the petitioner filed a petition for conjugal rights, namely
M.C.No.2535/2008. During the pendency of the said petition, the
parties reached a compromise; the respondent came back to the
matrimonial home. During the period of 2008-09, she conceived,
3
and delivered a daughter on 25.10.2009, at Kolkata, where she
had gone for her first delivery. According to the petitioner,
despite the fact that he kept on visiting the respondent at
Kolkata, and kept on requesting the respondent to come back to
matrimonial home, she refused to do so. From 2009 to 2012, the
respondent did not resume co-habitation with the petitioner.
Therefore, on 6.6.2012, the petitioner filed a divorce petition,
and in 2013 he filed an application under the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor daughter. During
the pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent settled her
dispute with the petitioner, and on 3.8.2013, both of them
entered into a compromise before the learned Family Court.
Therefore, the divorce petition was decided in terms of the
settlement. According to the petitioner, the respondent had
agreed to resume co-habitation with the petitioner, and not to
leave the petitioner and the child. But despite the commitment,
the respondent had made in the settlement, she did not adhere
to the same. Again in April 2014, allegedly, she left for Kolkata.
Despite the repeated request of the petitioner, the respondent
refused to return to the matrimonial home. Therefore, on
9.6.2014, the petitioner filed a execution petition before the
4
learned Family Court. During the pendency of the execution
proceedings, the respondent filed an application for seeking a
direction that the petitioner should be directed to pay the
educational expenses of the child. The petitioner filed his
objections. However, by order, dated 22.3.2018, the learned
Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay the educational
expenses at the rate of `50,000/- directly to the school, as
mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Ms. Nandita Haldipur, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this
Court:-
Firstly, the respondent is blowing hot and cold with regard
to the custody, and with regard to the educational expenses of
the child. In 2016, she refused to permit the petitioner to bear
the educational expenses of the child. Thereafter, she suddenly
filed an application seeking the educational expenses.
Secondly, instead of complying with the terms of the
settlement reached between the parties, the respondent
continues to violate the same. Therefore, she is disentitled from
claiming the educational expenses of the child.
5
Thirdly, although the respondent had promised to end all
the cases lodged by her against the petitioner and his relatives,
even the said promise is yet to be fulfilled by her.
Lastly, the Execution Court should not have gone beyond
the decree, and should not have passed the impugned order.
Moreover, the learned counsel pleads that this Court should
atleast direct the Execution Court to complete its proceedings
within a stipulated period of time, as the case has been hanging
fire for the last four years.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and
perused the impugned order.
5. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned
Family Court, dated 3.8.2013, whereby the learned Family Court
had decided the divorce petition clearly reveals that the order
contains the terms of settlement. According to the terms of
settlement, the petitioner had made a commitment that “he will
take good care of the respondent and their minor daughter as a
dutiful husband and beloved father and he shall not desert them.
He undertakes to take care of all needs and requirements of both
the respondent and their minor daughter to the best ability and
6
further assures that the respondent and his minor daughter have
always got a right of residence along with him in the house that
they are presently residing in together.” Thus, the petitioner
had also made a commitment that he will not only take good
care of the respondent and the minor daughter, but would also
look after “all their needs and requirements.”
6. Merely because there is a disagreement, and legal
battle between the petitioner and the respondent, it does not
entitle the petitioner to violate the commitment made by him in
terms of the settlement, the commitment quoted hereinabove.
Therefore, the contention that merely because the respondent
has either failed to adhere to her commitment, or has filed a
large number of cases against the petitioner, would still not
permit the petitioner to wriggle out of his legal commitment in
terms of the settlement. Therefore, the contention raised by the
learned counsel that since it is the respondent who is violating
the terms of the settlement, the petitioner cannot be saddled
with the educational expenses of the child, the said contention is
clearly unacceptable.
7
7. Since the petitioner has made a commitment before the
Court, since the Execution Court is merely directing the
petitioner to continue with his commitment, obviously the
Execution Court is not going beyond the decree. In fact, the
Execution Court is merely implementing the decree, as the
decree is passed on the basis of the terms of settlement. Thus,
the Executing Court is not going beyond the decree.
8. In case the petitioner is of the opinion that the decree
is not been followed by the respondent, he has ample legal
remedies available to him. But merely because a fault has been
committed by the respondent, it does not deprive the child of the
right to receive her educational expenses from the petitioner,
who happens to be her father.
9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find
any illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is,
hereby, dismissed.
10. However, since the case is hanging fire for the last
four years, since in a battle between the petitioner and the
respondent, it is the child who continues to suffer, this Court
8
directs the learned Family Court to conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31.8.2018.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
