Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.7668 OF 2019 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.13575 OF 2019 (GM-FC)
WRIT PETITION NO.7668 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SHIKHAR SINGH HARNWAL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O RAJBIR SINGH HARNWAL RESIDING AT F1/F2, GREEN STONE HILL EDENVALE JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICA-1909 … PETITIONER (By MR.ROHAN KOTHARI, ADV.)
AND: MANJEET KAUR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O SHIKHAR SINGH HARNWAL RESIDING HOME APARTMENTS BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560046 … RESPONDENT (By MR.SATHISH G RAIKAR, ADV.) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.01.2019 PASSED IN I.A.NO.II IN M.C.NO.1156/2017 IN ANNEXURE-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD. 2ND ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BANGALORE; AND ETC.
WRIT PETITION NO.13575 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SMT MANJEET KAUR W/O SHIKHAR SINGH HARNWAL AGE 34 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.GB 1 SWEET HOME APARTMENTS BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560046 … PETITIONER (By MR.SATHISH G RAIKAR, ADV.)
AND: SRI SHIKHAR SINGH HARNWAL AGE 32 YEARS, S/O RAJBIR SINGH HARNWAL R/AT D-303, NEELANCHAL APARTMENTS PLOT NO.3 SEC.-4 DWARAKA NEW DELHI – 110075
ALSO AT F1/F2, GREEN STONE HILL OFFICE PARK GREEN STONE HILL EDENVALE JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICA-1909 … RESPONDENT (By MR.ROHAN KOTHARI, ADV. FOR C/R)
- - - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.01.2019 IN M.C NO.1156/2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ND ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-J AND FURTHER ENHANCE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO RS.1,00,000/-(RUPEES ONE LAKH) PER MONTH AS SOUGHT FOR IN INTERIM APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE (I.A.NO.2) BY WAY OF MODIFICATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in both petitions inter alia have assailed the validity of the order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Family Court, Bengaluru by which the Family Court has awarded a sum of `25,000/- as maintenance to the respondent and `50,000/- as litigation expenses.
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner - husband submitted that the petitioner had filed an application seeking the status of the employment of the respondent - wife, her bank account details and the income tax returns. However, the aforesaid application is not decided by the Family
Court before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the respondent is qualified and is able to maintain herself.
On the other hand, the aforesaid contention is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent - wife and it is submitted that the respondent has tendered resignation from her job and is not employed anywhere. Learned counsel for the respondent has also justified the order passed by the Family Court.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. The relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under: “Having regard to the request of the petitioner for maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards litigation expenses and providing alternate accommodation is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that it is just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards her maintenance as well as accommodation and Rs.50,000/-.”
It is well settled law that Supreme Court in the case of ‘S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA’,
(1990) 4 SCC 594 has held that the decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power.
It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process. [SEE: ‘MAYA DEVI VS. RAJ KUMARI BATRA AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 486, ‘SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. MODERN CO- OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS’, (2010) 13 SCC 336, ‘UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. TALWINDER SINGH’, (2012) 5 SCC 480, and ‘UNION OF INDIA VS. RAVINDER KUMAR’, (2015) 12 SCC 291].
Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that while passing the impugned order, the Family Court has neither ascertained the income of the husband nor has decided the application filed by the
husband seeking details with regard to the income of the wife and has passed an order in a cryptic and cavalier manner which suffers from the vice of non- application of mind. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Family Court to consider the application filed by the petitioner – husband by a speaking order within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE