- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29691 WP No. 24618 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24618 OF 2022 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR JASON CYRIL SERRAO S/O LATE MR ANTONY SERRAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS C/O REKHA JATHANNA "JATHANNA GREEN GARDEN", POST: BELVAI-574213 MOODABIDRI, D.K. DIST. REP. BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VELERIAN SEQUEIRA S/O MONTHU SEQUIERA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KAYAR, PUNDU HOUSE, MITHABAIL POST, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574226. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADV.) AND: 1. MISS JOANNA CRYSTAL SERRAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2. MR JONAH NIGEL SERRAO AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29691 WP No. 24618 of 2022 BOTH ARE CHILDREN OF JASON CYRIL SERRAO AND MRS. JHANSI R. SERRAO, R/AT "RACHELS RAFUGE", BELVAI POST, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574213. …RESPONDENTS (R1 - JOANNA CRYSTAL SERRAO - SERVED, R2 - JONAH NIGEL SERRAO - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS IN EX. CASE 152/2022, PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ITINERATE COURT, AT MOODABIDRI VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Cretiorari to quash the initiation of proceedings and issuance of summons in Execution Case No.152/2022 pending adjudication before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Itinerary Court, Moodabidari. 2. The facts of the case are that the parties have entered into the compromise before this Court in MFA Nos.8638/2012 C/w. 8639/2012 and MFA No.8640/2012 dated 19.12.2013. As per the terms of said compromise i.e., clause - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29691 WP No. 24618 of 2022 (d) - that the respondent shall bear the educational expenses of both the children upto post graduation level either in India or abroad fully and that as per clause (e), the respondent shall pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to his children and shall pay the maintenance to his daughter for a period of two years or securing employment whichever is earlier and to his son for a period of three years or securing employment whichever is earlier. Thereafter, in the year 2014, she has filed Execution No.18/2014 which is renumbered as Ex.Case No.29/2015 and the Court had dismissed the said execution petition and the decree holder failed to prove that the compromise entered into, is on the basis of the evidence and documents produced by them. That is carried in appeal and that appeal came to be dismissed in the present execution proceedings i.e. Execution Case No.152/2022 is filed and summons were served on the husband. Questioning the summons and initiation of execution proceedings, the husband is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for husband submits that when already one execution petition is dismissed earlier - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29691 WP No. 24618 of 2022 and confirmed by this Court, the second execution petition is not maintainable. The wife is coming up with fictitious proceedings one after the other, two notices are served and as such, this petition has to be allowed and the execution petition that is filed needs to be dismissed. He further submits that a memo is filed before this Court stating that the educational expenses are paid by the husband. 5. Notices were served on the respondents, no vakalathnama is filed on behalf of respondents. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that earlier execution petition that is filed is dismissed. The ground on which the execution earlier was dismissed is as per the aforementioned clauses, educational expenses has to be borne by the husband and the wife cannot ratify the same even before the stage has come and she cannot seek for it. Now she is seeking the educational expenses. Just because the earlier execution petition is dismissed, that cannot be a ground for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29691 WP No. 24618 of 2022 dismissal of this execution. The memo is filed stating that he has already paid the amount and nothing survives for consideration and the children are now major and are employed. Now whatever the circumstances, it cannot be said that the execution petition is not maintainable, whatever the ground that is available to the husband, it is always open to him to submit the same before the Executing Court. This Court will not consider those aspects and the same has to be decided by the Executing Court. In that view of the matter, now the husband cannot say that the execution is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the husband to raise all the grounds before the Trial Court. ii. All I.As' in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2