M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) (TDS)

SHRUTHI. R W/O ANIL KUMAR K M AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

MANASVI K M D/O ANIL KUMAR K M AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN

Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

The relationship between the petitioner and respondents are not in dispute. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1-wife and father of respondent No.2-daughter. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer in KPTCL, the Family Court has granted maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.2- daughter.

On certain allegations of cruelty and ill- treatment against the petitioner-husband, respondent No.1-wife was constrained to live separately from the petitioner-husband along with respondent No.2-minor daughter. Ex.P.3 is the salary certificate, which proves that as on the year 2016, the petitioner was earning salary of Rs.74,000/- per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that respondent No.1-wife is working as a clerk

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband does not wish to contest the maintenance granted to petitioner No.2-minor daughter.

The respondents who are wife and minor daughter are living separately from the petitioner-husband and respondents are living independently, but not in the house of her parents. Therefore, respondent No.1-wife is under obligation to nurture respondent No.2-daughter by providing education, food and medicine etc., and also for maintaining herself has compelled her to work. Accordingly, she may be working in the bank as a clerk and may be receiving salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and

As discussed above, respondent No.1-wife was constrained to do job in the bank and may be earning Rs.12,000/- p.m., because this is inevitable for her to live in the society with dignity and also to fulfill her responsibility towards her minor daughter. Therefore, these compelling circumstances making wife to earn as above stated cannot be said that she is capable to earn herself. To satisfy hungry of stomach, the wife and daughter cannot wait till decree is passed by the Court or the daughter cannot wait for medicine and education till decree is passed for maintenance. Therefore, when wife is constrained to do some work for earning basic livelihood amenities, as in the present case the wife is working on temporary basis in the bank cannot be said that the wife is an earning person to maintain herself and also it is not the ground to shirk the responsibility on the part of the

Therefore, the Family Court is correct in holding that the petitioner-husband is a financially viable person. Even though, the Family Court has observed that after deduction, his take home salary is Rs.50,000/- per month. The only amount can be deducted while considering the quantum of maintenance is income tax and professional tax. Whatever may be the deductions like interest/loan raised on car, or loan raised for construction of house or LIC or any other purposes that cannot be deducted towards making assessment of quantum of maintenance,

Therefore, the Family Court is correct in holding that the petitioner-husband is a financially viable person. Hence, there are no good grounds available to reduce the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner-husband is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the respondents.