- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2758 WP No. 105266 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105266 OF 2021 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. FAKKIRAPPA @ PRAKASH, S/O. MADIVALAPPA MUGALI, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE (KSRTC), R/O: TADAKOD, DHARWAD -581105. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHARATHI G. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MANJULA @ REKHA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA @ PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, C/O: KASHINATH HARLAPUR, TAMATAGAR BUILDING, AZAD COLONY, CHANNRAYANAGAR, BETAGERI PLOT, NAVALAGUNDA ROAD, DHARWAD -580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER ON MEMO OF CALCULATION DATED 29-11-2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.186/2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING AWARD OF COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2758 WP No. 105266 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order on memo of calculation dated 29-11-2021 passed in CRL.MISC.NO.186/2021 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Dharwad, produced at Annexure-H. b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case including award of cost in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all fairness would submit that the issue in the lis stands answered against the petitioner as observed by the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.10449 of 2022 disposed on 27th June 2024. The Coordinate Bench held as follows: “6. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies on the judgment in the case of Poongodi and Anr - vs- Thangavel1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while 1 2013 AIR SCW 5764 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2758 WP No. 105266 of 2021 referring to the decision in the case of Shahada Khatoon and and others-vs- Amjad Ali and others2 has observed that the application filed by the appellants therein under Section 125(3) of Cr.PC which is beyond 12 months was in continuation of the earlier applications and for subsequent periods of default on the part of the respondent therein. The first proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.PC, therefore do not extinguish or limit the entitlement of the appellants therein to the maintenance granted by the trial Court and the Court has set aside the order of the High Court and directions were issued to the respondent therein to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants therein from the date of filing of maintenance petition i.e, 4.2.1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September-2013 payable on or before 7th October 2013 and thereafter to continue to pay monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the said order is not complied, the trial Court was directed to issue warrant of arrest of the respondent therein and ensure that the same is executed and the respondent be taken into custody and to suffer imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) Cr.PC and accordingly allowed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for respondents submits that against the order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance, petitioner has preferred revision petition and stay was granted in 2014 and subsequently, the said revision came to be withdrawn by the petitioner on 17.12.2020. That is one more reason why the execution could not be initiated by wife. Learned counsel submits that it is the responsibility of the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance and he cannot come before this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The order passed by the Court below granting maintenance, has now attained finality as the revision filed by petitioner is withdrawn. The revision was pending till 2020. Now, on that ground also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is barred by 2 (1999) 5 SCC 672 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2758 WP No. 105266 of 2021 limitation cannot be accepted and that apart, even if no such RPFC is pending, still the wife is entitled to recover the maintenance as it is a continuous liability and cause of action still exists as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Poongodi1 case referred supra. This Court is of the view that the petition is maintainable and the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the proviso to Section 125(3) of Cr.PC, the arrears of maintenance beyond 12 months cannot be recovered, is not correct and is liable to be rejected. 9. Now coming to the 2nd issue with regard to some of the amounts paid by the husband to the wife, they are part of the record and they can be established by the petitioner before the Court below. Both the petitioner and the respondents shall file their respective memos of calculation before the Court below and after considering the same, the Court shall pass appropriate order.” 3. In that light, the petition stands disposed on the same terms as is directed by the Coordinate Bench. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10