IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.35195 OF 2016 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SHEKAREGOWDA S/O LATE KALAKNAGOWDA NAGANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUGANNUR VILLAGE, KUMBALAVATHI POST, KUSTAGI TALUK KOPPALA DISTRICT-584121

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. JAYA W/O SHEKAREGOWDA NAGANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDDEBIHAL, BIJAPUR, DISTRICT-586112 PRESENT ADDRESS JAYA @ JAYADEVI, D/O SANGANABASAPPA BIDARAKUNDI, D.NO.464/4, BEHIND BEO OFFICE, BIJAPUR ROAD, MARUTHINAGAR, MUDDEBIHAL, BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586112

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHIVAYOGEESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, FOR SMT. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDTIONAL FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU IN C.MIS.NO.35/2013 DATED 29.03.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND THEREBY DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOWER COURT ON THE GROUND OF MAINTAINABILITY; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

In this writ petition, respondent in C.Misc. No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Mysuru has challenged the order dated 29th March, 2016 rejecting the Memo filed by the respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition are referred to with their status and rank before the Family Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner before the Family Court that the petitioner therein has filed C.Misc. No.35 of 2013 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. After service of notice the respondent entered appearance and filed memo before the Family Court stating that compromise has been entered into between the parties before the Lok Adalat in Original Suit No.17 of 1998 on the file

of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Muddebihal and hence, the proceedings in C.Misc. No.35 of 2013 requires to be closed. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 29th March, 2016 rejected the memo and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent in C.Misc. No.35 of 2013, has presented this petition.

4. Heard Sri Jagadeesh C.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Syhivayogeesha Shivayiogimath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Sri Jagadeesh C.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the judgment referred to by the learned Judge of the Family Court at paragraph 8 of the judgment is not applicable to the factual aspects of the case and therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 29th March, 2016 requires to be interfered with in this petition.

6. Per contra, Sri Shivayogeesha Shivayogimath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that provision under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and thereby, justifies the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the careful examination of writ papers would indicate that the respondent herein has filed suit in OS No.17 of 1998 seeking decree for recovery of maintenance amount and the said suit came to be disposed of before the Lok Adalat on 16th March, 1999 in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties as per Annexure-C to the petition. Having taken note of the fact that as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the award made by the Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties, however, looking into the impugned order passed by the Family Court, the same would indicate that the no reference has been made with regard to the provisions contained under the aforementioned Act and that apart, relying upon the judgment of this Court referred at paragraph 8 of the impugned order, has come to conclusion to reject the memo filed by the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, the reasons assigned by the Family Court is in the absence of Section 21 of the aforementioned Act, which requires to be reconsidered by taking into account the factual aspects on record. Accordingly order dated 29th March, 2013 passed in

C.Misc. No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Mysuru is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the Family Court shall reconsider the matter afresh after affording opportunity to both the sides. All contentions of the parties are left open.

SD/- JUDGE

LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69