- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1850 OF 2020 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI SANJAY J RAO S/O SRI N.A.JAYARAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O NO.7 S.B.I. OFFICERS COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHIRAJ A.K., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RASHMI RAO D/O H S BHEEMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 92, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, CHIKKALASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 061 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.DHIRENDRA N. KATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGLORE IN EXECUTION NO.6/2009 DATED 18.12.2019 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 47 OF CPC FOR CLOSURE OF EXECUTION, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND TO CLOSE THE EXECUTION NO.6/2009 BY HOLDING THAT DECREE DATED 10.07.2007 IN M.C.NO.2395/2006 PASSED BY I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IS DECLARATORY OF MARITAL STATUS AND NO RELIEF FOR MAINTENANCE WAS GRANTED. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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. filed under Section 47 of CPC Read with Section 70(2) of CrPC praying to close Ex.No.6/2009 dated 18.12.2019 by the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the judgment debtor/husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the parties have filed M.C.2395/2006 dated 10.07.2007 before the Family Court seeking mutual consent divorce whereby the Family Court had decreed the said M.C. and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 25.04.1997, which was subsequently registered, is dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent from the date of the order. The parties have filed a joint memo before the Family court and there were certain terms and conditions in the memo with regard to the visitation as well as the maintenance. When the husband failed to pay the maintenance - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 and the wife had failed to follow the order with regard to the visitation, the husband had filed Ex.No.37/2008 and the wife had filed Ex.No.6/2009. Both the matters were clubbed and in that, an order was passed on 21.03.2014, whereby the Family Court had directed the wife to comply with the order with regard to the visitation and the wife was directed to allow the child to meet the father on any two Sunday’s in a month to spend a reasonable time, at least six hours with the child in privacy as per the order and she was also directed to intimate the change of address and if the wife fails to adhere to the terms and conditions incorporated in the joint memo, the husband is at liberty to take the coercive steps against the wife. When it comes to the husband, he was directed to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child from September 2007 till the date as per the decree. Thereafter, the husband had filed an I.A. under Section 47 of CPC, praying for closure of the execution petition. It is stated in the I.A. that there is no specific order regarding payment of maintenance in the decree. Hence, the husband is not liable to pay the same and the execution is not maintainable. The objections were filed by the wife. The Family Court had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 dismissed the said application observing that the wife had filed the present execution petition based on the decree passed in M.C.No.2395/2006 dated 10.07.2007 and the said decree is based on mutual consent divorce. Evidence is lead by both parties and the Court had extracted what has been stated and the terms of the said mutual consent divorce. Then the Family Court had referred to the earlier execution, where there was direction to pay arrears of maintenance at Rs.5,000/- to the child within one month. The Family Court had observed that even after passing the said order, JDr. has not made any payment to the DHr. and as per the objections also Ex.No.37/2008 was dismissed for default on 18.07.2018 and the Family Court further observed that under Section 47 of CPC, the Court which passed the decree has jurisdiction to entertain the questions regarding execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and separate suit is not maintainable. Hence, the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the contention that there is no specific order in the decree with regard to the maintenance and thus the petition is not maintainable cannot be accepted. In para No.9 of the order, the Court has specifically observed that the JDr. has paid - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 maintenance amount up to September 2007, thereafter he has stopped paying the maintenance. It was also observed in the order that the maintenance amount of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was paid i.e.,Rs.5,000/- each per month to the mother and the child and as the mother is remarried and there was no quantification of maintenance between mother and child, both are equally entitled for maintenance amount and therefore, considering that the son was entitled for maintenance for a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month in the absence of specific order. The said order is not challenged by the husband and that has become final and the Court had already clarified that the husband has to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child from September 2007 onwards and accordingly, the Family Court had dismissed the I.A. Thereafter, another I.A. was filed under Section 47 of CPC read with Section 70(2) of CrPC to recall the warrant and to decide the application under Section 47 of CPC. The Family Court again dismissed the said application and the warrants were not recalled. Aggrieved by the same, the husband is before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband has reiterated the very same grounds that are taken before the Family Court and it is submitted that he is not liable to pay the maintenance as the operative portion of the judgment and decree is silent and apart from that the wife had violated the judgment and decree passed by the Court and she is not entitled to seek enforcement of the order. It is further submitted that the son had attained majority on 10.04.2017. He has filed a memo of calculation to show that, from the date of order till 10.04.2017, the amount comes to Rs.6,00,000/-. It is submitted that he has already paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the wife. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that apart from the maintenance amount, the husband is also liable to pay the educational expenses of the child. It is further submitted that as per the joint memo he has to pay the educational expenses and that issue is still pending before the Family Court. However, he do not dispute the fact that as far as the present warrant is concerned, it has nothing to do with the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 said amount, but it is pertaining to non-payment of the maintenance amount. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The warrant is issued for non- payment of the maintenance amount. As discussed by this Court in the preceding paragraphs, the entire outstanding amount as far as the monthly maintenance is concerned is paid by the father and the contention that the order does not disclose any specific directions have no legs to stand. Even the submission that the wife has not complied with the order of visitation also cannot come in the way of the wife in recovering the amounts. If there is any violation on the part of the wife, it is for the husband to seek execution. Then coming to the educational expenses, whether he is entitled, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspect which is outside the scope of this writ petition. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. In the light of the fact that the entire amount at Rs.5,000/- is paid, the warrant is recalled. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30476 WP No. 1850 of 2020 ii. If there are any other amounts as per the compromise decree, it is for the parties to work out and this Court is not expressing any opinion on that. iii. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42