Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14418 (KAR)

SRI. K.P DHARMENDRA @ SUBHASH v. SMT. PREETHI @ C. R JYOTHI

WP/3935/2024 · 2025-04-25

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17367 WP No. 3935 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.3935 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. K.P DHARMENDRA @ SUBHASH S/o K L PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KELAGALALE VILLAGE, SUNDEKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-577101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. PREETHI @ C. R JYOTHI D/o G C RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/o 2ND CROSS, VIVEKA NAGARA HASSAN-573 201 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5TH AUGUST 2023 IN EX-3/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT HASSAN AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17367 WP No. 3935 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Ex.No.3/2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan, the judgment debtor/petitioner is before this Court. 2. The decree holder has initiated the execution proceedings stating that as per the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in MFA No.4461/2019, the husband has to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and as he failed to pay the said amount, execution proceedings were initiated. 3. It is the objection of the judgment debtor who is the petitioner herein that an interim order has been passed directing to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards interim maintenance in Crl.Mis.No.897/2017 and that sum of Rs.3,000/- per month is being deducted from his salary. Inspite of the order of permanent alimony, the salary deduction is being continued. The decree holder cannot claim both the amounts. It is his case that he has paid an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- towards maintenance. Hence, he is liable to pay only Rs.6,41,000/-. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17367 WP No. 3935 of 2024 4. The Court had passed the interim order observing that the question whether the payment is made in Crl.Mis.No.897/2017 is a part of permanent alimony or not needs to be enquired by giving an opportunity to both the sides. However, the respondent needs to deposit the entire amount of Rs.8,00,000/- before this Court. 5. When this matter came up before this Court on 23.04.2024 an interim order was passed, whereby the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.5,67,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On such deposit, the wife is at liberty to withdraw the amount. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within four weeks, the stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated without further reference to the Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the order passed by this Court he has deposited the amount and even the respondent has withdrawn the amount. 7. It is further submitted that he had paid several payments and without even considering them, the Court had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17367 WP No. 3935 of 2024 passed the impugned order. Though the notice is served on the respondent, no vakalath is filed on her behalf. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner perused the orders passed by this Court and the impugned order. The whole dispute is that according to the petitioner he had paid certain payments in the Crl.Mis.No.897/2017 and that needs to be deducted from the amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. 9. Considering the fact that already an amount Rs.5,67,000/- is deposited by the petitioner. The Trial Court shall adjudicate on the issue with regard to whether any payments have already been made by the petitioner to the judgment debtor or any further amounts needs to be paid by him. 10. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MR