SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr. Manohar. C. Solanki vs Mrs. Sanjukta M. Solanki on 25 April, 2018

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation