N. Balakrishna Vs. Smt. Champa S. Nittoor and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
hindu marriage act, 1955 (central act no. 25 of 1955) - section 24 -- expenses for proceedings -- wife working in usa & earning $28,852 p.a. -- family court awarding wife expenses of rs. 25,000/- for coming to bangalore to participate in proceedings, held, perverse. - section 9: [v. jagannathan, j] jurisdiction of civil court - suit against electricity board demanding difference of electricity charges maintainability - held, jurisdiction of civil court is clearly ousted in regard to any suit against electricity board in view of section 145 of the electricity act, 2003, since section 127 of the said act has given aggrieved party a right to appeal before appellate authority provided under regulations. indian electricity act (30 of 2003) section 126 & karnataka electricity board electricity supply regulations (1988) regulation 2.33: [v. jagannathan, j] demand made on behalf of by electricity board by asstt. executive officer held, said officer comes within expression authorised officer. demand document covered assessment taking into account average consumption and consumption during relevant period. in view of section 126, it cannot be termed as a show cause notice. - therefore, it is obvious that the financial position of the respondent is better than that of the petitioner. the fact that reconciliation proceedings failed is no ground to award expenses under section 24 of the hindu marriage act. 25,000/- to the wife payable by her husband having come to the conclusion that the financial position of the wife is better than that of the husband.orderm.b. vishwanath, j.1. both counsel present. heard.2. in this petition under article 226 of the constitution the petitioner has prayed that annexure-a should be quashed.3. annexure-a is the order passed by the learned family courtjudge, bangalore, dated 23.10.1992 awarding rs. 25,000/- towardsthe travelling expenses to the present respondent by the petitioner.this order was passed in m.c.no. 221/1990 on his file.4. m.c.no. 221/1990 was filed by the husband-balakrishna (present petitioner) against the present respondent smt.champa s. nittoor for annulling the marriage.5. the learned family court judge as has already been stated, awarded rs. 25,000/- towards the travelling expenses payable by the husband to the wife.6. he passed the impugned order taking into consideration that the petitioner had come from america to participate in the reconciliation proceedings7. in paragraph 5 of his order (annexure-a) the learned family court judge has observed:'therefore, it is obvious that the financial position of the respondent is better than that of the petitioner.' 8. even so, the learned family court judge awarded rs. 25,000/ - under section 24 of the hindu marriage act towards travelling expenses.9. what section 24 of the hindu marriage act says is, that if it appears to the court that either wife or the husband, as the case may be has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, the court may award expenses of the proceedings. !n the instant case there is material on record to show that the wife is employed in america getting a salary of 28,852 dollars per year. the fact that reconciliation proceedings failed is no ground to award expenses under section 24 of the hindu marriage act. expenses towards the proceedings could be awarded under section 24 of the act only if the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and to meet the expenses of the proceedings.10. bearing in mind that the wife is employed in america getting 28,852 dollars per year the learned family court judge has committed a grievous mistake in awarding the travelling expenses of rs. 25,000/- to the wife payable by her husband having come to the conclusion that the financial position of the wife is better than that of the husband.11. for the aforesaid reasons the order passed by the family court judge as per annexure-a is perverse. accordingly it is quashed.12. writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.B. Vishwanath, J.

1. Both Counsel present. Heard.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that annexure-A should be quashed.

3. Annexure-A is the order passed by the learned Family CourtJudge, Bangalore, dated 23.10.1992 awarding Rs. 25,000/- towardsthe travelling expenses to the present respondent by the petitioner.This order was passed in M.C.No. 221/1990 on his file.

4. M.C.No. 221/1990 was filed by the husband-Balakrishna (present petitioner) against the present respondent Smt.Champa S. Nittoor for annulling the marriage.

5. The learned Family Court Judge as has already been stated, awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards the travelling expenses payable by the husband to the wife.

6. He passed the impugned order taking into consideration that the petitioner had come from America to participate in the reconciliation proceedings

7. In paragraph 5 of his order (Annexure-A) the learned Family Court Judge has observed:

'Therefore, it is obvious that the financial position of the respondent is better than that of the petitioner.'

8. Even so, the learned Family Court Judge awarded Rs. 25,000/ - under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act towards travelling expenses.

9. What Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act says is, that if it appears to the Court that either wife or the husband, as the case may be has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, the Court may award expenses of the proceedings. !n the instant case there is material on record to show that the wife is employed in America getting a salary of 28,852 Dollars per year. The fact that reconciliation proceedings failed is no ground to award expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Expenses towards the proceedings could be awarded under Section 24 of the Act only if the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and to meet the expenses of the proceedings.

10. Bearing in mind that the wife is employed in America getting 28,852 Dollars per year the learned Family Court Judge has committed a grievous mistake in awarding the travelling expenses of Rs. 25,000/- to the wife payable by her husband having come to the conclusion that the financial position of the wife is better than that of the husband.

11. For the aforesaid reasons the order passed by the Family Court Judge as per Annexure-A is perverse. Accordingly it is quashed.

12. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.