B N Vasantha vs Smt K Vasanthi and Others

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 19.10.2011. passed on I.A. No. 8 which is an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and I.A. No. 10, which is an application filed u/s 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S. No. 5273/2005. pending on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore.

The relevant facts of the case are that the respondents herein have filed the said suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. The said application has been dismissed. Another application has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 19.1.2011 passed on I.A. No. 5 by which interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/ per month has been awarded. The said application has also been dismissed. It is against the said orders, that these writ petitions have been filed.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

On a reading of the written statement filed by the petitioner herein, it becomes clear that: a categorical defence with regard to relinquishment of right, title and interest of the plain tills in the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant/petitioner herein has been taken. Therefore, all that the petitioner has to do is, to prove the said defence by sufficient, documentary and oral evidence. The application filed by the petitioner herein seeking amendment of written statement is perused. The contents of the said application in my view is, only a reiteration of what has been stated in the written statement The trial court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the said application.

As far as the application filed seeking modification of order dated 19.1.20.11 is concerned (I.A. No. 10), it is necessary to note that as against the said order, W.P. No. 114781/2007 was filed before this court. This court. did not interfere with the said order. However, this court reserved liberty to the petitioner herein to seek modification of the order dated 19.1.2011. By the said order, interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- has been ordered in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial court has considered the reasons for seeking modification and has come to a conclusion that they are not sufficient to come to a different: conclusion, arid has, accordingly, dismissed I.A. No. 10. It is necessary to observe that the trial court has considered at length the right of the plaintiffs to seek interim maintenance while passing The orders on I.A. No. 5. In the absence of there being any change in the circumstances, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed for modification of the order dated 19.1.2011. The said order also does not call for any interference in these writ petitions, Accordingly, these writ petitions are rejected.