DEEPAK Vs. HEMAVATHI P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the husband and Respondent is the wife; they are an estranged couple. Respondent has filed M.C.No.5448/2021 seeking a decree for dissolution of their marriage on certain grounds. Respondent-wife's Application in I.A.No.2 filed u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 having been favoured, learned I Addl. Prl. Judge of Family Court at Bengaluru vide order dtd. 21/2/2023 has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay Rs.15,000.00 per month for the maintenance of child. The same is put in challenge in writ jurisdiction.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the Petition papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the marital relationship with the Respondent is not disputed and the legitimacy of the child is also admitted. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that his client does not have sufficient means to pay maintenance is difficult to countenance. It is a duty in law, in religion and in reason that the father has to make payment for the maintenance of children. However, no material is produced to show that the Respondent is gainfully employed and she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty is on the shoulders of father.

(3.) That apart, the impugned order dtd. 21/2/2023 is a product of exercise of statutory discretion; for invoking writ remedy under Article 226 /227 a strong case for violation of rules of reason & justice has to be made out. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper substantiating the said contention. Therefore, all aspects having been duly considered, this Court opines that the impugned order does not merit a deeper examination in constitutionally vested under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction under vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd ., (2003) 3 SCC 524.