MR. MANOHAR C. SOLANKI Vs. SANJUKTA M. SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Manohar C. Solanki, the petitioner, has challenged the legality of the order, dated 22.3.2018, passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the learned Family Court has directed the petitioner - decree holder to pay the school fees of the minor child, Kumari Dhriti Solanki, at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- directly to the school, where the minor child is studying, and to produce the receipt before the Court.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 23.1.2007, the petitioner, Mr. Manohar C. Solanki was married to Ms. Sanjukta M. Solanki, the respondent, according to the Hindu rites and customs. According to the petitioner, even at the initial stage of the marriage life, the marriage was on the rocks. Allegedly, on 14.3.2008, the respondent suddenly left the matrimonial home, and went back to her parental home in Kolkata. While at Kolkata, she filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, and his relatives for offence under Section 498A of IPC. In 2008, itself, the petitioner filed a petition for conjugal rights, namely M.C.No.2535/2008. During the pendency of the said petition, the parties reached a compromise; the respondent came back to the matrimonial home. During the period of 2008-09, she conceived, and delivered a daughter on 25.10.2009, at Kolkata, where she had gone for her first delivery. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that he kept on visiting the respondent at Kolkata, and kept on requesting the respondent to come back to matrimonial home, she refused to do so. From 2009 to 2012, the respondent did not resume co-habitation with the petitioner. Therefore, on 6.6.2012, the petitioner filed a divorce petition, and in 2013 he filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor daughter. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent settled her dispute with the petitioner, and on 3.8.2013, both of them entered into a compromise before the learned Family Court. Therefore, the divorce petition was decided in terms of the settlement. According to the petitioner, the respondent had agreed to resume co-habitation with the petitioner, and not to leave the petitioner and the child. But despite the commitment, the respondent had made in the settlement, she did not adhere to the same. Again in April 2014, allegedly, she left for Kolkata. Despite the repeated request of the petitioner, the respondent refused to return to the matrimonial home. Therefore, on 9.6.2014, the petitioner filed a execution petition before the learned Family Court. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the respondent filed an application for seeking a direction that the petitioner should be directed to pay the educational expenses of the child. The petitioner filed his objections. However, by order, dated 22.3.2018, the learned Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay the educational expenses at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- directly to the school, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Ms. Nandita Haldipur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-