Karnataka High Court
WP/37027/2025 of HARISH B S Vs SHOBHA on 30 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010791122025 NC: 2026:KHC:54558 WP No. 37027 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 37027 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: HARISH B.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARSF S/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 37027 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
HARISH B.S.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARSF
S/O SEETHARAMA
NO.8, 4TH CROSS
NETRAVATHLI ROAD, GANGAPPA LAYOUT
UDAYANAGAR
BENGALURU -560 016
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O HARISH B.S.,
NO.113/18/3RD CROSS,
KRISHNA DEVARAYA LAYOUT
K.R.PURAM, V.B. LAYOUT
BENGALURU -560 038
PH 8296780989
2.
SURESH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA
REAL ESTATE, PWD MAIN ROAD
AKASH NAGAR, AN PURA
BENGALURU -560 016
PH: 986168593
…RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D: 16/09/2026
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/D:16/09/2026)
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2025
(ANNEXURE-K) PASSED IN MC NO. 1657/2020 ON THE FILE OF
THE
ST
(ST)
ADDL.
PRL.
JUDGE,
FAMILY
COURT,
BENGALURU, DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR DEFAULT FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE COURTS AND
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER.
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2025 passed in M.C.No.1657/2020 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as husband and wife.
2. The husband had filed M.C. petition seeking divorce. In that petition, the wife had filed an application seeking maintenance, and the Family Court had granted maintenance. As the husband failed to pay the amount, the Family Court had dismissed the M.C. petition for non-prosecution. Aggrieved thereby, the husband is before this Court.
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the outstanding amount is Rs.4,00,000/-. The husband has already paid Rs.3,30,000/- and has now obtained a demand draft for an amount of Rs.70,000/-, which he will hand over to the respondent on 05.10.2026. It is submitted that, even as per the judgment of this Court, if any such payments are not made, the Court can at best stay the proceedings. But it cannot dismiss the M.C itself for non-prosecution. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside.
4. The notice to the respondents is held sufficient.
5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. If there is any violation of the orders passed by this Court, the trial Court has jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 151 of the CPC. However, the Court cannot dismiss the M.C. itself for non-prosecution. Considering the fact that the outstanding amount, as stated before the Court, is Rs.4,00,000/- and that the husband has taken a demand draft for Rs.70,000/- and will hand over it by 05.10.2026, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the
HC-KAR
order impugned. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 03.11.2025 passed in M.C.No.1657/2020 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside and the M.C petition, is restored to file.
ii. However, it is made clear that after the matter is restored, if it is brought to the notice of the Family Court that any other amount is still liable to be paid by the husband, the Family Court shall fix the time and direct the husband to pay the amount.
iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
iv. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44