SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. NIDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-husband is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dtd. 21/4/2020 passed by the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in pending M.C.No.4681/2018 whereby a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000.00 has been awarded to the respondent-wife in addition to one time litigation expenses of Rs.50,000.00. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the said award is bad in law; both the petitioner and respondent are well placed in employment; there is absolutely no need for any amount by way of maintenance; respondent has taken away the child abroad and thereby has deprived the petitioner of his visitation rights.

(2.) The respondent having entered appearance through her counsel opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. Learned counsel submits that there is no dispute as to marital relationship and paternity of the child which is school going; though the impugned order was made on 21/9/2020, the petition has been filed on 26/3/2021 with no explanation for the delay brooked; despite the order no payment having been made, the respondent has filed Execution No.125/2021; in any circumstance the amount awarded shall be exclusively appropriated for the expenses of the child. The Court below having considered all aspects of the matter in its discretion has made the award of maintenance and therefore such orders do not merit a deeper examination at the hands of writ court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested in it under Article 227.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Parties are Hindus and their marital relationship is not at all in dispute, the marriage having been performed on 20/11/2005, admittedly. A pretty daughter Kum. Samika Singh is born on 22/12/2010 and presently she is about 12 years old in the exclusive custody of respondent-wife. Paternity of the daughter is also not in dispute. In fact, petitioner-husband in his M.C.No.4681/2018 has averred the same and has sought for dissolution of marriage u/s.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.