THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S S.B. MINERALS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

R.P.F.C.No.100144/2015

BETWEEN

AND

RAJSHEKHAR SUBUDDHISWAMI KUDACHIMATH, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO SBI, RMP MEDICAL PRACTITIONER & BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR ITI, BASAVESHWAR MANDIR, MAHATMA GANDHI HOUSING COLONY, DHARWAD BYPASS ROAD, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. ..... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

2 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:01.07.2015, IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO.265/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED U/S.125 OF CR. P.C.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER 1. The wife and daughter are before this Court challenging the order passed in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. Smt. Vidyarani, wife of the respondent Mr. Rajashekhar and their daughter, Kumari Akhila filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance. 3. It was their case that the marriage of first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.04.2004 and out of this wedlock, Kumari Akhila was born in the year 2010. It was her case that she had been neglected by her husband and she was unable to

3 maintain herself and therefore she and her daughter were required to be granted maintenance. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was claimed as maintenance. 4. The wife and daughter contended that the respondent was a registered medical practitioner and financial advisor to the State Bank of India and he also owned a big house at Bailhongal and he was earning Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- p.m. and was capable to pay adequate maintenance. 5. The proceedings were resisted by the respondent-husband. He contended that he had taken good care of his wife and yet she was not satisfied with him and his lifestyle and used to pick up quarrels and he was therefore not entitled to maintain his wife. He stated that he was unemployed and in search of a job and he was obliged to look after his aged parents and his job as Advisor to the State Bank of India was for a short period and it was also uncertain. He, however, admitted that he had a car but also had a car loan of

4 Rs.2,00,000/- and was finding it difficult to meet day- to-day expenses. He also admitted that he had a share in an agricultural land but that did not fetch any income. He lastly contended that his wife was working as a Teacher getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- and therefore there was no ground to grant maintenance. 6. The Trial Court, on consideration of the material produced before it, came to the conclusion that the wife was not entitled for maintenance as her bank account indicated that she had sufficient money and she had suppressed the fact that she was working as a Teacher. The Trial Court, however, granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- as monthly maintenance to the daughter. 7. It is against this rejection of the maintenance for the wife and also for enhancement of monthly maintenance for the daughter, this petition has been filed.

5 8. Though the notice of this petition was served on 17.05.2016, the respondent has chosen to remain absent. 9. The fact that the petitioners are the wife and daughter of the respondent is not in dispute. Therefore, the only question that has to be addressed is as to whether the petitioners were unable to maintain themselves and whether the respondent was required to maintain them. 10. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the first petitioner wife had suppressed the fact that she was working as a Teacher and the factum of her being employed came to the knowledge of the Court only after a direction was issued by the Trial Court to produce her bank account and after the salary certificate of hers was obtained by the Court.

6 11. The Trial Court has observed that the petitioner is an earning woman and getting salary and therefore she was able to maintain herself. 12. In my view, merely because the petitioner is working as a Teacher, that by itself, would not lead to an inference that she was having adequate income to maintain herself having regard to the fact that a single mother would be forced to secure an employment to take care of her only daughter. It was, in my view, quite inevitable that she would have secured some employment to meet her daily needs. Securing of an employment and leading a life out of the proceeds of this employment cannot be a ground to deny the wife for maintenance. 13. In the instant case, the respondent admits that he possessed a car but contended that there was a standing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on the car. It belies common sense and logic that an unemployed person would have purchased a car and also have an

7 outstanding loan on that. The fact that the respondent owns and possesses a car, is by itself, an indication of his income and also his standard of living. 14. The respondent also produced acknowledgements for having filed income tax returns. The said acknowledgments were for the years 2009- 2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The said returns filed by the respondent indicate that he was earning the following sums as gross income for the above mentioned years: Assessment year Total income 2009-2010 Rs.2,50,177/- 2010-2011 Rs.2,56,405/- 2011-2012 Rs.2,45,722/- 2012-2013 Rs.1,03,244/- 2013-2014 Rs.59,671/- 2014-2015 Rs.26,751/-

8 15. It is, thus, clear that about 10 yeas ago itself, the respondent had a gross income of Rs.2,56,405/- which translates to a little more that Rs.20,000/- a month. 16. The petition for maintenance was filed in the year 2012. It is obvious that, immediately on filing of the maintenance petition, there is a drastic fall in the income as per the income tax returns to Rs.1,03,244/- and Rs.26,751/-. This is obviously to create an impression that the respondent was having a meager income. As stated by the respondent himself, he was the owner of a car and the Income Tax returns (Ex.R-18 series) indicate that he was consistently filing a return of income in the range of Rs.2,50,000/- before the filing of the petition. I am therefore of the view that the respondent was definitely earning a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- p.a.. 17. In view of the above, notwithstanding the fact that the first petitioner was working as a Teacher,

9 the respondent would nevertheless have to maintain his wife and children commensurate with the standard of living that they were accustomed. 18. The daughter of the respondent would also have to necessarily study in a school commensurate with the standard of living of the respondent. Having regard to the fact that the respondent was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., in my view, it would be just and equitable to award to the first petitioner a maintenance of Rs.7,500/- p.m. and a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the second petitioner. 19. It is needless to state that the respondent is bound to take care of the educational needs of his minor daughter, which by itself is not a small sum in these days. In my view, a sum of Rs.5,000/- as stated above would be a reasonable. 20. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Trial Court insofar as it relates to the rejection of the claim

10 of the first petitioner wife and I hereby order that the respondent shall pay the first petitioner a sum of Rs.7,500/- p.m. from the date of application before the Trial Court till its payment. 21. The order of the Trial Court in respect of second petitioner is modified and it is held that the second petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the date of application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C instead of Rs.2,000/- p.m.. 22. The revision is accordingly allowed in part.

Sd/- JUDGE

Naa