- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24836 WP No. 14344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14344 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI.PRIYANKA G.R., W/O SRI KEMPEGOWDA M.N., D/O SRI RAJASHANKAR G.M., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 28, 1ST B MAIN ROAD, 4TH ‘C’ CROSS, SRIGANDHA NAGARA, NEAR KTG SCHOOL, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, VISHWANIDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI KEMPEGOWDA M.N., S/O LATE NAGARAJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT 28, 1ST B MAIN ROAD, 4TH C CROSS, SRIGANDHA NAGARA, NEAR KTG SCHOOL, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, VISHWANIDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.N.RAGHU, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU IN OS NO.275 OF 2024 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE- A PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU ON IA NO.II DATED 01.02.2025 IN O.S.NO.275 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24836 WP No. 14344 of 2025 OF 2024 BY ORDERING ATTACHMENT OF THE APPLICATION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.275/2024 dated 01.02.2025 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the defendant/wife is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The husband had filed the O.S.No.275/2024 seeking recovery of money. It is the case of the husband that he had spent huge amount towards the construction of the house and later, in view of the differences between the parties, as the said site on which the house is constructed belongs to the wife which was gifted to her by her parents, she was not letting her husband to enter into the house. Initially, the husband had filed O.S.No.290/2024 seeking injunction. In that he had filed two I.As, I.A.No.1/2024 is filed seeking the relief not to dispossess and I.A.No.2/2024 is filed seeking the relief - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24836 WP No. 14344 of 2025 not to alienate the property. When these two applications were dismissed and the same were carried to this Court and the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed MFA.No.7683/2024 in part and the parties are directed to maintain status quo and not to cause any obstruction to live in the respective floors, till the disposal of the suit. Thereafter, O.S.No.275/2024 is filed on 01.07.2024 seeking recovery of money. 4. I.A.No.2 is filed under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking attachment before judgment of the application schedule property. By way of the order impugned the Family Court had prohibited the wife from transferring or charging the application schedule property in any way and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. The Family Court while passing the order observed that the husband in support of his case had furnished invoice for purchasing iron, cement and other building materials. He had also furnished the bank statements revealing about payment of amount. After filing of the I.A. from the husband, the Family Court had directed the wife either to furnish the security or show cause why she could not furnish security, but the wife did - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24836 WP No. 14344 of 2025 not comply with the order of the Court. Further, the Family Court had also observed that the defendant had contended that the parents gifted the application schedule property to her and with the assistance of her parents she had constructed the building. The defendant in the written statement has not stated that she is having her own income. The Family Court had also observed that the defendants have already issued the publication intimating about alienation of the application schedule property. Considering all these the Family Court had granted the relief restraining the defendant from alienating the property. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife/ defendant submits that the Family Court without appreciating any of the facts and particularly the fact that in the earlier suit the I.A. that is filed seeking not to alienate was dismissed and the fact that the husband had failed to establish the fact that he has spent any amounts towards the construction of the house has granted the relief and the relief that is granted is contrary to the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24836 WP No. 14344 of 2025 151 of CPC. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ husband/plaintiff submits that he has placed before the Court, the bank statements and the income tax returns for the year 2023 to show that he had spent substantial amount for the construction of the house whereas no other material is placed by the defendant in support of her case. It is submitted that in the earlier suit, when the Family Court had dismissed the I.A. seeking the relief not to alienate, however, the Family Court had made an observation that the plaintiff can seek the reliefs in the suit that is pending for recovery of money. It is submitted that there is an order of status quo in the MFA.No.7683/2024 where the appeal filed by the husband was partly allowed. However, the status quo is with regard to the possession. He submits that prima facie the plaintiff could prove that he has spent substantial amount and the action on behalf of the defendant by giving the paper publication that they are going to alienate the property. If the property is alienated the relief that is sought in the petition even if the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24836 WP No. 14344 of 2025 is decreed, he will not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree. The Family Court had rightly considered all these issues and rightly granted the relief and there are no grounds to interfere. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In view of the strained relations between the parties, the husband had filed the suit for injunction restraining the wife from interfering with his possession and also filed two I.As. one is filed not to alienate and the other one is filed seeking a relief not to dispossess. As far as the I.A. filed for not to dispossess is concerned, the Co- ordinate Bench this Court in MFA.No.7683/2024 had granted an order of status quo. As far as the I.A. filed for not to alienate is concerned, the same is dismissed. Now, coming to the present suit, it is the suit for recovery of money. It is the case of the husband that he has spent substantial amount for construction of the house and admittedly the property stands in the name of the wife. The bank statements and the income tax returns are placed before this Court to show that he has spent substantial amount. It is not in dispute that the wife is not having any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24836 WP No. 14344 of 2025 income and according to her, with her parents support the said construction is made. The Family Court had rightly considered all the documents that are placed before the Court and particularly the paper publication showing that they are going to sell the property which is in question for which according to the plaintiff he has spent substantial amount. If this property is alienated even in case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, it would be difficult for him to recover the said amount which is the purport of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC and in the considered opinion of this Court, the Family Court had rightly considered and passed the order and there are no reasons to interfere with the well considered order. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13