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
