- 1 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22521 OF 2022 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. KUMARI W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NO.2429/2, 4TH MAIN 5TH CROSS, VINAYAK NAGARA, MYSORE-570 012. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUMA @ SUMALATHA W/O H.K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 2. RAVIKUMAR S/O H.K NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1 (BOTH WERE RESIDING AT NO.84/3, HUTAGALLI, MYSORE) 3. SRI H.K NAGARAJU S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT PAMPINA HOSALLI VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SRINIVAS.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R1, R3-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 05/12/2025) - 2 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 18.10.2022 PASSED BY 4TH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU IN C MISC NO.471/2019 IN ALLOWING THE SALE WARRANT DIRECTING THE PDO, HOSALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH TO SELL THE SITE PROPERTY BEARING NO.299 ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned 4th Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru (‘the Family Court’ for short) in Crl.Misc.No.471/2019 in allowing the Sale Warrant directing the P.D.O, Hosalli Gram Panchayath to sell the site property bearing No.299. 2. Petitioner before the Family Court/Respondent No.1 before this Court, filed I.A.No.IV under Section 421(3) of Cr.P.C., in Crl.Misc.No.471/2019 with a prayer to issue sale warrant. The facts leading to the filing of present petition are as under: - 3 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 3. Petitioner is the sister of Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are wife and son of Respondent No.3 herein. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had filed an application for maintenance against Respondent No.3 herein in C.Misc.No.233/2012 before the Family Court, Mysore and the Family Court by its order dated 14.07.2014, ordered Respondent No.3 to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the Respondent No.1 for life time and Rs.1,000/- to Respondent No.2 till he attains the age of 18 years. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., in C.Misc.No.471/2019 before the IV Additional Family Court, Mysore for payment of arrears of maintenance of Rs.1,45,000/- for a total period of 58 months from 14.07.2014 to 14.05.2019 to her and her child vide order dated 14.07.2014 in C.Misc.No.233/2012 passed by the Family Court, Mysore. Respondent No.3 failed to make payment as ordered in C.Misc.233/2012. - 4 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 5. The Family Court, on 18.11.2021 secured the presence of Respondent No.3 herein by issuing non- bailable warrant. On that day, Respondent No.3 was committed to judicial custody for violating the Court order. On 15.02.2022, the Family Court issued warrant for levy of fine (FLW) to the property bearing No.256B and property bearing No.299 situated at Hosahalli Gram Panchayath in Sreerangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, for recovery of the amount. Even after that Petitioner No.1 was absent and non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued on him and also P.D.O, Hosahalli Gram Panchayath, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, was directed to attach the site bearing No.299 (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’) standing in the name of Respondent No.3 towards arrears of maintenance and issued attachment warrant. 6. The Panchayath Development Officer, Hosahalli Gram Panchayath, Srirnagapatna inspected the immovable property on 14.09.2022 and produced the same before the Family Court. The copy of Immovable Property Report - 5 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 was produced and marked. It is only thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the attachment of the property for non-payment of arrears of maintenance by respondent No.3. 7. It is contended that the schedule property is not liable for attachment as Respondent No.3 is not the absolute owner of the property and the same is joint family property. One Naveenkumar had filed suit for partition and separate possession of the schedule property in O.S.No.57/2008. The said Naveenkumar contended that he is son of late Krishne Gowda and said late Krishne Gowda had two wives, viz., the mother of the petitioner and Respondent No.3 and mother of said Naveen Kumar. Said suit was allowed and Judgment and decree for partition and separate possession was ordered in O.S.No.57/2008. Against the said Judgment and decree, Respondent No.3 filed R.A.No.5001/2013 and the same came to be dismissed vide Judgment dated 04.02.2014. Respondent No.3 along with mother has filed RSA before - 6 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 this Court in RSA No.485/2014 and the same is pending consideration before this Court. 8. The Family Court, by order dated 26.09.2022, rejected the statement of objection filed by the Respondent No.3 for the reason that the property is already attached and hence, the objection filed by the respondent is infructuous. Respondent No.1 herein filed an application before the trial court under Section 421(3) of Cr.P.C., for sale of the property bearing No.299 situated at Hosahalli village, Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya District. The Family Court, without considering the objection dated 26.09.2022 filed by Respondent No.3, passed the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 issuing sale warrant directing the P.D.O, Hosahalli Gram Panchayath to issue sale warrant to sell the site property bearing No.299 shown in I.A.No.4 in public auction and remit the sale proceeds to the Court. It is contended that the impugned order is bad in law as it has been passed without considering the objection filed by Respondent No.3 herein. However, Respondent No.3 has bourght to the notice of - 7 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 the Family Court regarding pendency of the suit even prior to institution of the Crl.Misc.No.233/2012 and C.Misc.No.471/2019. It is submitted that the property attached is a pendente-lite property and the impugned order for issue of warrant of sale of the property is a joint family property and there is already an order for partitioning of the schedule property and it is not available for attachment. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as it has been passed without considering the objection filed by Respondent No.3. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 has brought to the notice of the Family Court about the pendency of the suit even prior to institution of C.Misc.No.233/2012 and C.Misc.No.471/2019. The Family Court has attached the property without considering the fact that it is a joint family property and attaching the property would defeat the rights of co-parceners. As per the submission of the petitioner, she is having a right over the properties of the respondents. It is further submitted - 8 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 that the Family Court has not given opportunity to file objection to the application filed by Respondent No.2 herein which is bad in law and thereby, it is submitted that the impugned order has to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in C.Misc.No.471/2019 on the file of the 4th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru and this petition is not maintainable. 11. This Court has observed that as per Section 7 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings and the order passed by the Family Court with regard to the respondents are concerned. Section 7 is extracted below for reference: 7. Jurisdiction.-(1) xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx (a) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx (b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Explanation.- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:- - 9 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. 12. As per Section 7 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in C.Misc.No.471/2019 on the file of the 4th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. The order passed in C.Misc.No.471/2019 is with regard to the respondents herein are concerned. As per the claim of the petitioner, she is having a right over the properties of the respondents. If the Court has attached the joint family - 10 - WP No. 22521 of 2022 property, the petitioner has got remedy under civil law and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Family Court, the petitioner has to take steps in accordance with law, not by way of filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv