SAROJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner-wife is as to non-implementation of the judgment & decree handed by the Division Bench of this Court in respondent-husband's M.F.A.No.1990/2014 (MC) disposed off on 5/1/2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to internal page 4 of the judgment wherein the 4th & 5th terms of compromise come to petitioner's aid. He submits that so far as payment of Rs.10,000.00 payable from the salary is concerned, the same has been remitted to his client. However, 35% of the pension has not been paid to her after retirement of the private respondent. Therefore an appropriate direction be issued to the concerned authorities, argues he.

(2.) Learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that there is no clarity in the terms incorporated in the Division Bench judgment rendered in the RFA so far as payment of 35% from the pension payable to the private respondent and if that is made clear, the authorities have no difficulty in ensuring payment of the same. She hastens to add that no benefit would accrue to her clients who are officials by not paying what has been apportioned between the parties, as is recorded by the Division Bench in the subject M.F.A. So contending, she seeks to protect the interest of officials, rightly.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned HCGP that a clarification needs to be issued by this Court so that 35% of the amount payable from the pension of private respondent herein shall be apportioned and be paid to the petitioner in terms of RFA judgment. The said terms read as under: