- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 3934 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. M.L. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O T. LINGEGOWDA, R/AT THAVAREKERE, GUTHALU COLONY POST, MANDYA CITY - 571401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOKESH D.K., ADV. FOR SRI. P. NATARAJU., ADV.) AND: SMT. K. S. SOWMYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O K.M. SUDESHKUMAR R/AT NO. 60/61, "MANASI", ATTUR LAYOUT, ESCORTS ENGINEERS COLONY YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAGADISHCHANDRA KAMATH.K., ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. PRL. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN MISC. NO. 08/2023 DATED 21/12/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Misc.No.8/2023 dated 21.12.2023 by the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of this case are that the husband on 06.04.2009 has filed petition in MC No.26/2009 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya and by judgment and decree dated 04.09.2014, the Court has decreed the petition filed by husband. The same is challenged by wife by filing MFA No.7100/2014 before this Court on 30.10.2014. Then the said appeal filed by the wife is allowed by Division Bench of this Court on 26.04.2016. Challenging the same, the husband had preferred SLP (C) No.34732/2016 before the Hon'ble Apex - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 Court. Thereafter, the wife has filed petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights in MC No.2470/2016 on the file of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. The said case was allowed. Then on 23.11.2022, the Apex Court allowed the petition and has affirmed the order of Trial Court and decree of divorce is granted. However, the Court had granted interim alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- reserving liberty to file application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for determination of alimony. Then, thereafter on 12.01.2023, the wife has filed Misc.No.8/2023 on the file of III Addl. Prl. Family Court, Bengaluru claiming permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Then, the husband filed his objection stating that the Court at Bengaluru have no jurisdiction and properties are situated at Mandya and the wife had to necessarily come up before the Court at Mandya which has granted decree of divorce. The Family Court by order impugned had dismissed the said application. While dismissing the application, the Court has observed that the wife had come up with the petition under Section 25 of the Act in furtherance of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court seeking for permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,00,000/-and has produced the properties - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 belonging to the petitioner-husband and his family members in support of her case to establish the financial status of the husband. The wife has not sought for any relief with respect to the properties belonging to husband and his family members. However, she is relying upon the said documents only for the purpose of establishing the status of husband in support of her case for the purpose of determining the quantum of permanent alimony for which, she is entitled to. 4. Earlier, wife had filed petition in MC.No.2470/2016 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights before the very same Court and at that time, the husband has not disputed the jurisdiction of the Court and he has participated in the proceedings accepting the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, objection raised by husband regarding jurisdiction of Courts in the case on hand filed under Section 25 of the Act cannot be accepted and accordingly, the said objections are rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband has filed MC No.26/2009 seeking for divorce on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya. The Court has passed the judgment and decree and the same is carried up to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court had affirmed the order of the Trial Court and permitted wife to initiate the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act by giving the interim alimony. In those circumstances, petition has to be filed for alimony before the Court at Mandya but not at Bengaluru where her restitution petition is filed. He has relied on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Samir Ranjan Chandra vs. Lipika Chandra1 predominantly to the paragraph Nos.11,12,13 and 14, wherein the Court in similar circumstances, has taken a view that the party after filing application under Section 25 of the Act, where the original decree for divorce was passed. The relevant paragraphs reads as under: "11. In that case the Division Bench of this Court differentiated the words like "application" and "Petition". An "application" for example may be oral unless expressly provided to be made in writing (para 3) of the said judgment. In paragraph-4 of the said decision it was decided, "The Hindu Marriage Act has provided for four substantive reliefs like restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage and divorce and in Ss.9,10,11,12,13,13A,13B and 14 where it has provided for those substantive 1 reported in (2015) 2 CalLJ 388 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 reliefs, it has also provided that the mode to invoke reliefs under those Sections would be by way of petition. But in S.24 and 25, where the Act has provided for proceeding for pendente lite and also permanent alimony, which can be initiated only as consequential to another original proceeding for any of the substantive reliefs under Ss.9 to 14 it has provided that the mode to invoke those Sections for such consequential reliefs would be by way of application. In S.14 itself, while in sub-sec.(1) word petition has been used with reference to substantive proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in the proviso to sub-sec.(1) and in sub-s.(2) the word application has been used to provide for the mode to initiate the incidental proceeding to obtain permission of the Court to present the substantive petition for dissolution of marriage before the expiry of one year since the date of the marriage. Now, when in respect of the same subject matter, namely, matrimonial reliefs, different words like "application" and "petition" have been used in the same statute, and even in the same Section of that Statute, then there may very well be a presumption that the Legislature, which is ordinarily presumed to use words precisely and not indiscriminately, has used the two different words to mean different things. When two different words are used in the same Statute, it may be presumed that those words, even if otherwise analogous, have been used with different connotations. Applying these rules of interpretation, it may be held that the expression "petition" in S.19 of the Hindu Marriage Act would mean original petitions filed for any of the substantive reliefs awardable under Ss.9 to 13B of the Act and would not cover - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 applications under S.24 and 25, which can be filed only during the pendency or on the termination of a substantive proceeding under Ss.9 to 13B, as something incidental or consequential to such a proceeding." 12. The statement of object of Act 50 of 2003 vide which Section 19 of the Act was amended will go to show that the said Act was enacted to provide that a "petition" for relief under the provision of the said Act and Special Marriage Act may be presented by the aggrieved wife to the district court within local limits of whose jurisdiction she may be residing. Herein also the word "petition" has been used and not "application". 13. In the decision of this Court referred to the above the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court so passed in Malook Singh (Supra) was considered but that was differentiated. This Court preferred to rely on the Single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court as reported in Jagdish Vs. Bhanumati, in that decision the Bombay High Court also held that Section 19 would, by itself have no manner of application to an application under Section 25 of the said Act and the same being an application for relief consequential to the decree passed in original proceeding, would have to be filed in the Court which has passed the decree. 14. Thus, considering the decision of our Hon'ble Court as referred to above this Court is of the opinion that even though Section 19 was amended in the year 2003 incorporating the sub-clause (iiia) in the said Act to give benefit to a wife/opposite party to come up with such a petition before the Court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 concern where she is residing on the date of the presentation of the petition but this amendment cannot give a right to the present Opposite Party to file an application under Section 25 of the said Act before the District Judge at Barasat particularly when the original decree for divorce was passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sambalpur. It is needless to mention that the substantive sections regarding divorce etc., are sections 9,10,11,12,13,13A, 13B and 14. Section 25 or Section 27 is incidental in nature deriving source from that original decree for divorce or etc. Thus, the application under Section 25 of the said Act as filed by the petitioner was not maintainable before the District Judge, North 24 parganas at Barasat being out of jurisdiction. This Court reiterates that law as it stands now the only jurisdiction lies with the appropriate Court at Sambalpur, Odisha.” Relying on this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has failed to consider the fact in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Courts at Bengaluru have no jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the wife had already filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, at that time, the husband has not raised any objection with regard to maintainability and now before the same Court, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 respondent-wife has filed application under Section 25 of the Act, seeking permanent alimony. 7. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Court had already passed a decree of restitution and now, the application is filed under Section 25 of the Act seeking permanent alimony before the said Court is maintainable. He is relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur2. It is submitted that what is the decree, what is the scope of petition under Section 25 is elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the light of the same, the Court at Bengaluru has jurisdiction and the Court had rightly considered and passed order and no interference is called for. 8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 9. Where thrust of the learned counsel for respondent is on Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and according to the 2 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 learned counsel, when there is a decree of restitution passed by the very same Court wherein he has filed application under Section 25 of the Act, there is no bar for wife to make such application and consequently, the finding of the Court is that the husband has not raised any issue with regard to maintainability when the restitution petition is filed. 10. Section 25 of the Act reads as under: "25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1)Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall *** pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 as the court may deem just.(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just." According to the learned counsel, there is a decree of restitution passed by the very same Court wherein he has filed application under Section 25 of the Act and there is no bar for wife to make such application and secondly, the finding of the Court is that the husband has not raised any issue with regard to maintainability when the restitution petition is filed. The order of the Trial Court and this application could not be sustained and argument of the learned counsel for respondent has no force for the following reasons: i. This is not the case where the wife has come up with the application for permanent alimony independently subsequent to any decree or proceedings. Here, the husband has filed MC seeking divorce at Mandya and the same was allowed and finally it reached up to Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court has confirmed the findings of the Court at Mandya and fix - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 the interim alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- and directed the parties to workout their remedies. In those facts and circumstances and basing on the said order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this application is moved. In those circumstances, it is necessary that wife has to move the application before very same Court and now the finding of the Court is that she is not seeking any relief with regard to those properties. ii. It is also an admitted fact that the husband is staying in Mandya and the wife has placed on record certain properties to show that the husband is having properties at Mandya. It is the observation of the Court that she is not seeking any relief with regard to those properties and only for the purpose to show that husband is capable of paying, these properties are shown. When once the decree is passed by the Court and permanent alimony is granted; when the husband fails to pay the amount, there has to be an execution petition and properties that are situated within the jurisdiction of the Family Court which is one of the reason but the prime reason is that the petition has to be filed before the Court at Mandya and in view of MC that is filed before the Court at Mandya, the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Family Court went wrong in giving a finding that the Court at - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29178 WP No. 3934 of 2024 Bengaluru has jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order dated 21.12.2023 passed in Misc.No.8/2023 by the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set aside. ii. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. iii. All I.As' in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1