These petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 21.06.2014 passed by the Family Court, Shimoga in M.C. No. 130/2012 with respect to the direction to the petitioner to pay temporary alimony of Rs. 10,000/- per month, passed in the order sheet vide Annexure-A. These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER These writ petitions were filed to quash the direction issued in the order dated 21.06.2014 in M.C. No.130/2012, while allowing I.As.1 and 2 of 2014, by the Judge of Family Court, Shivamogga, to pay Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as temporary alimony, from 01.06.2014, till disposal of them a in petition.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide these writ petitions are as under:

The petitioner – husband, married the respondent – wife, on 27.04.2011. On account of estrangement, petitioner filed under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, ‘the Act’), M.C.No.1374/2014 in the Family Court, Bengaluru, for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent filed in the Family Court, Shivamogga M.C.No.130/2012, under S.13(i) (ia) of the Act, to pass decree of divorce and dissolution of the marriage. C.P. No.122/2012 filed in this Court, by the respondent, to withdraw and transfer M.C.No.1374/2014 from the Family Court, Bengaluru was allowed on 12.08.2014. As a result, M.C.No.1374/2014 was withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Shivamogga.

3. I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 were filed in M.C.No.130/2012 to reopen the case, recall PW1 for cross-examination and lead his evidence. On behalf of the respondent, her advocate stated ‘no objection’ to allow the said applications, subject to ordering payment of interim maintenance. Finding that PW1 was not cross-examined despite the case having been adjourned more than once by imposing cost and that even the evidence of the respondent in the petition having been taken as nil and the case having been posted for hearing of arguments, the Court below being of the view that “it is just and equitable to direct the husband to pay temporary alimony to the wife” passed an order dated 21.06.2014. In view of the admission of the petitioner that he has monthly income of Rs. 37,000/, I.As.1 and 2 were allowed, subject to the husband paying temporary maintenance of Rs. 10,000/to the wife, with effect from 01.06.2014, till the disposal of the petition. PW1 was recalled by reopening the case, subject to compliance of the said condition. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid condition, the husband filed these writ petitions.

4. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned advocate, contended that the conduct of a party in the matter of alleged delay to decide the main case has no relevance at the stage of granting pendente lite maintenance. He submitted that the imposition of the impugned condition, would operate harshly against the petitioner, apart from the fact, that the respondent is gainfully employed and is not in need of maintenance and has not even filed an application under S.24 of the Act. He further contended that C.P.No.122/2014 having been allowed on 12.08.2014 and M.C. No. 1374/2014 having been withdrawn from the Family Court, Bengaluru and transferred to the Family Court, Shivamogga, the cases filed by both parties are required to be decided together and that the petitioner was not the cause for delay in deciding of the cases. He submitted that an order of the above nature could not and ought not have been passed by the Court below, on its own, i.e., imposing the condition while granting the relief prayed in I.As.1 and 2 and mandating the fulfillment of the imposed condition. He submitted that there being an altogether perverse approach to the matter and the impugned condition being arbitrary and illegal, interference is called for.

5. Sri Sateesh Chandra K.V., learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand contended that the discretion exercised by the Judge of the Family Court, on t