SULOCHANA Vs. R CHANDRASHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10. 11. 2006 passed in M. C. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sagar presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner and respondent are the wife and husband having been legally married on 2nd february, 1996 in Dharmastala Kshetra, Dakshina Kannada, after the death of first wife. The petitioner is the second wife of the respondent. From the first wife the respondent has three children-2 sons and 1 daughter. He being the businessman and owner of the. Shreedar Wood Works, has a huge residential property in the City of Sagar, Shimoga District. Soon after the marriage of respondent with the petitioner, when the petitioner caught respondent indulging in illegal activities, petitioner was harassed, ill-treated and starved without food for days and was almost thrown out of the house by the respondent and his younger sister. At this stage, the petitioner approached the Sagar Police Station and lodged the complaint against the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent without any justification has filed the application under Section 13 of the Family Courts act for dissolution of his marriage with an intention to deliberately drag the petitioner to redress her grievance from the Counsel before the Court below. The petitioner boldly and courageously participated in the proceedings and filed written statement and strongly resisted contending that, the petition filed by the respondent is false and not maintainable and she was constrained to file the application under Section 24 of the hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance and the same was allowed and the interim maintenance was granted to the petitioner. The respondent questioned the correctness of the order passed in favour of the petitioner before the competent Jurisdictional Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 2191 of 2001. The revision petition filed by the respondent was dismissed confirming the order for interim maintenance passed by the Civil Court. Be that as it may, the respondent very conveniently has filed I. A. No. 5 under Order 23, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for withdrawal of the M. C. Petition when the respondent was cross-examined and case was posted for further evidence. The Trial Court has rejected the said I. A. No. 5 filed by the respondent. Subsequently assigning the same reasons as stated in the i. A. 5, respondent has filed a memo dated 29. 9. 2006 before the Lower court for withdrawal of MC No. 16 of 1998. The petitioner has filed appropriate objection to the memo for withdrawal and requested the Lower court to impose heavy cost of Rs. 30,000/ -. Since the respondent has not paid interim maintenance for the last six months, the petitioner was in a great financial difficulty and was living a hand to mouth existence without having any independent source of income. The Court below after hearing both sides without any justification, when the matter was at the stage of further cross-examination of respondent, has accepted the memo filed by respondent seeking withdrawal of the M. C. No. 16 of 1998 and allowed the same with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)Sagar vide Annexure-D and seeking appropriate relief as stated supra, petitioner herein has filed the present. Writ Petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.