SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15517

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
SMT. RAJESHWARI K M., @ RAGINI K.M. – Appellant
Versus
SRI NAGARAJA H. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10168 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. THARESHA K.N.
For the Respondents:

The petitioner is obligated to submit her assets and liabilities for interim maintenance as established by the Supreme Court in a prior case.

Headnote:The writ petition challenges the dismissal of I.A.No.3 under Section 24 of the Family Court Act. The Family Court ruled on the non-filing of the statement of assets and liabilities as per the Supreme Court judgment in Rajneesh Vs. Neha. The failure to file such a statement resulted in the dismissal, deemed reasonable by the High Court. Key issues included whether the Family Court provided due opportunity to the petitioner. The court concluded the order by dismissing the writ petition with pending applications closed.

Table of Content
1. claims of hardship were presented, questioning the court's procedure. (Para 3)
2. the court noted compliance with legal procedures and justified dismissal. (Para 4 , 5)

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in MC.No.334/2022 dated 05.12.2024 by the Family Court, Davanagere, whereby the court has dismissed the I.A.No.3 filed under Section 24 of the Family Court Act .

2. The MC is of the year 2022 and the IA is filed on

17.01.2023 and even till the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 is passed, the wife had not chosen to file the statement of assets and liabilities as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha , [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. The family Court considering the said fact has held that said application is not maintainable and dismissed the I.A.No.3. Assailing the same, the wife is before this court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the court has not given her a reasonable opportunity and had dismissed the application in this manner and it would cause lot of hardship and prejudice to the wife.

4. This court is not proposing to issue notice to the respondent as disposal of the case is in the interest of both the parties.

5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner/wife, perused the material on record. The impugned order is passed by the family court after waiting for nearly more than a year waiting for the wife to file the statement of assets and liabilities. The submission that no opportunity is given, this court is not able to appreciate. It is the responsibility of the wife to file her statement of assets and liabilities, if she wants interim maintenance as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajneesh Vs. Neha Case referred supra. Even after lapse of more than a year, when the wife had failed to file the same, the family court had no other alternative but to dismiss the petition and this court finds no infirmity with the said order passed by the family court.

Accordingly, this court is passing the following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top