Skip to content


M. Ramachandra Rao Vs. M.S. Kowsalya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 18 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Kant76; AIR1969Mys76
ActsHindu Marriage Act - Sections 9
AppellantM. Ramachandra Rao
RespondentM.S. Kowsalya
Excerpt:
.....questions of law or fact, which requires the adjudication by the criminal court and till then the proceedings under departmental enquiry cannot be proceeded, then only the case requires as to whether the departmental proceedings to be stayed or not. on facts, held, there are four charges alleged in the departmental enquiry. whereas the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under sections 460,471,406,408 and 409 of i.p.c., and the allegations in support of the said charge is that, the petitioner has committed a criminal breach of trust, forgery and cheating, whereas the charge alleged in the departmental enquiry is that, making xerox copy of the tickets and selling them, collecting money causing loss of revenue to the corporation. there is no error in proceeding with the..........for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the hindu marriage act was stopped by the civil judge when the husband committed default in the payment of arrears of maintenance of rs.1,000/- payable to the wife under the order of the court.2. mr. yoga narasimha appearing for the husband contended that if the husband neglected to pay the arrears of maintenance all that was possible was the recovery of payment in execution proceedings and that the civil judge had no power to stop further proceedings in the matter relating to the application for restitution of conjugal rights. i do not agree. when the civil judge made a direction that the husband shall pay the arrears of maintenance, it was his highest duty to insist upon obedience to that direction. if there was disobedience he.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This revision petition is presented by a husband whose application for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was stopped by the Civil Judge when the husband committed default in the payment of arrears of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- payable to the wife under the order of the Court.

2. Mr. Yoga Narasimha appearing for the husband contended that if the husband neglected to pay the arrears of maintenance all that was possible was the recovery of payment in execution proceedings and that the Civil Judge had no power to stop further proceedings in the matter relating to the application for restitution of conjugal rights. I do not agree. When the Civil Judge made a direction that the husband shall pay the arrears of maintenance, it was his highest duty to insist upon obedience to that direction. If there was disobedience he had inherent power to stop further proceedings which were commenced by the husband. That was the view taken in Malkan Rani v. Krishnan Kumar, , Anita v. Birendra Chandra, : AIR1962Cal88 and Bhuvaneshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai : AIR1963MP259 , and with the enunciation made in these decisions I respectfully agree.

3. So, I dismiss this revision petition with costs.

4. DBD/D.V.C

5. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //