R. NAGARAJ Vs. NETHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife; they are an estranged couple. Petitioner has filed M.C.No.1092/2019 seeking a decree for dissolution of their marriage on certain grounds. Respondent-wife's Application in I.A.No.4 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. 11/10/2022 has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay Rs.10,000.00 per month to the Respondent-wife and Rs.25,000.00 towards litigation expenses. 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, there is no dispute as to the marital relationship between the parties or about the legitimacy of the children in question. The capacity of the Petitioner-husband to pay cannot be put in challenge since he is not gainfully employed even going by the version of his counsel. Generally, it is the husband who has to take care of his wife & children. The only contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner is for the staying of interim maintenance order dtd. 11/10/2022; however, no material is produced to show that the Respondent is gainfully employed or that she has contracted another marriage.

(3.) That apart, the impugned order dtd. 11/10/2022 is a product of exercise of statutory discretion; for invoking writ remedy under Article 226 /227 a strong case for violation of rules, 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 Article 227 vested supervisory jurisdiction under vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCECO. Ltd ., (2003) 3 SCC 524.