- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22707 RPFC No. 109 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 109 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI SURESH N AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE A NARAYANASWAMY R/AT NO.125, 1ST ‘R’ BLOCK 20TH B MAIN ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N.G., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KALPANA S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O SRI SURESH N R/AT NO.2648/B VENKATESHWARA NILAYA 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS R V COLONY TUMAKURU-572 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.112/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ISSUING ATTACHMENT WARRANT OF SALARY OF PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22707 RPFC No. 109 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.112/2020 dated 17.09.2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur, whereby the Family Court had issued attachment warrant of salary of the husband, the husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the Family Court without giving an opportunity had passed an order and the other submission is that the attachment of salary that is sought is for the period from 05.03.2018 to 05.08.2020. Learned counsel further submits that in the light of Section 125(3) of the Cr.PC, the recovery cannot be made beyond 12 months and this aspect was not considered by the Family Court. Further, even before this Court they have given a cheque for an amount of Rs.96,000/- and certain amounts were already recovered from the salary of the petitioner/husband and they are lying before the Family Court. Unless and until the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22707 RPFC No. 109 of 2021 amounts that are to be paid and the outstanding amount are determined by the Family Court, a warrant cannot be issued. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the submission with regard to the recovery of arrears beyond 12 months cannot be considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shahada Khatoon and others vs. Amjad Ali and others1 which was reiterated in the case of Poongodi and another Vs. Thangavel2. Relying on the said judgments, this Court had also passed an order in W.P.No.10449/2022 dated 27.06.2024 in case of S. Dinesh Vs. Kum. Madhumitha and another. Coming to the arrears, it is submitted that he has no objections for remanding the matter to the Family Court as far as determining the amounts and the outstanding amount to be paid. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The submission with regard to recovery of amount beyond 12 months is no more res integra. As the Hon’ble Apex Court in Poongodi’s case and Shahada Khatoon’s case referred supra has already decided the same 1 (1999)5 SCC 672 2 2013 AIR SCW 5764 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22707 RPFC No. 109 of 2021 and as it is a continuous cause of action there cannot be any limitation for recovery of the amount. Then coming to the outstanding amount, this Court had perused the order, the order refers to only about the admitted arrears of amount. An amount of Rs.96,000/- is paid before this Court and an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- is recovered from the salary and that is lying before the Executing Court. In those circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. The impugned order passed in Crl.Misc. No.112/2020 dated 17.09.2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court and the Family Court shall determine the amount that is liable to be paid by the husband to the wife. ii. In case if that amount is not deposited the salary warrant which is issued shall again come into force. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22707 RPFC No. 109 of 2021 iii. Accordingly, the RPFC is allowed. iv. All I.As. in the RPFC shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6