Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.20450/2017 (GM-FC)
c/w WRIT PETITION No.35359/2017 (GM-FC)
In W.P.No.20450/2017 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M P RAGHAVENDRA, S/o MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT # 3, BIRESHWARA NIVASA, 20TH CROSS, 33RD MAIN, NEAR SIDDESHWARA TAKIS, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE – 560002. …PETITIONER (By SMT. CHAMPOO KAVYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNIL SASTRY M, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. R L RACHANA, W/o M P RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, C/o. LAKSHMIKANTH, # 14, SRI GURU RAMA DHAMA, KALIDASA NAGAR, SHIRAGATE, TUMKUR – 572 106 …RESPONDENT
(By SRI MITTY NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2017 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU VIDE M.C.No.5452/2014 IN INTERIM APPLICATION No.8 UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.
In W.P.No. 35359/2017 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN
Mrs. R L RACHANA, W/o Mr. M P RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 14, Sri. GURU RAMADHAMA, KALIDASANAGARA, NAGANNANAPALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR – 572106
…PETITIONER (By SRI MITTY NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI M P RAGHAVENDRA, S/o MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT: 3, BIRESHWARA NIVASA, 20TH CROSS, 33RD MAIN, NEAR SIDDESHWARA TALKIES, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE – 560078.
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. CHAMPOO KAVYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNIL SASTRY M, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2017, PASSED IN M.C.NO.5452/2014 ON I.A. No.8, FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE H.M.ACT, 1955, AS PER ANNXURE-A BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BANGALORE AND TO ENHANCE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FROM Rs.20,000/- TO Rs.50,000/-, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
3 THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Both these writ petitions assail the order dated 05.04.2017 , passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby, the learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (‘Act’ for short), and has granted an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month both to her, and to the child born within the wedlock, and has also granted Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses. Since Mr. M P Raghavendra, the petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the said order, he has filed W.P.No.20450/2017. Similarly, since Smt. R.L.Archana, the respondent-wife, is aggrieved and prays for enhancement of the interim maintenance, she has filed W.P.No.35359/2017. Since both the writ petitions arise from the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common order by this Court.
The facts are being taken from W.P.No.20450/2017. Therefore, while the husband is referred to as the petitioner, the wife is referred to as the respondent in this order.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that (on 08.11.2012) the petitioner and respondent were married according to Hindu rites and customs. During the wedlock, (on 03.09.2013) the couple was blessed with a daughter, Kumari Divisha Raghavendra. However, the marriage was not a stable one according to the petitioner. For the petitioner claims, he was subjected to acts of cruelty by the wife. Therefore, the petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act. The petitioner filed his objections. According to the petitioner, in order to reveal his income, he has not only filed the bank statement, the gift deed made by his mother, the
5 cancellation of the said gift deed, but also filed income tax returns for the years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015- 2016. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court granted the interim maintenance as aforementioned. Hence, these two petitions before this Court.
Mr. Sunil Sastry M, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that according to the petitioner his income is not more than Rs.25,000/- per month. Yet, the Family Court has granted an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/-.
Thus, the interim maintenance is highly unreasonable. Therefore, the interim maintenance amount should be reduced by this Court.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner happened to be the only son of his parents; the petitioner’s family has large number of properties in their name; the petitioner’s family is having 26 dwelling houses in one building
6 compound, and another two shops, two houses and four rooms in another building. From these, it appears, the petitioner’s family is earning about Rs.3.00 lakhs as rent per month. Moreover, the petitioner’s family also has four sites near BGS College, and two sites at Anjanapura, Bengaluru; it also has agricultural lands in Shivanahalli, Nagamangala Taluk. From the agricultural activities, the family is earning about Rs.30.00 lakhs per annum. Moreover, the Family Court has already noticed that although a property was gifted by the mother to the petitioner, in order to avoid paying the maintenance to the respondent, the said gift deed was cancelled by the petitioner, only after the divorce petition was filed. Thus, the petitioner is not justified in claiming himself to be a man without means. The petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife and his daughter. Lastly, while the respondent is unemployed, and saddled with the responsibility of bringing up the child, the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain the respondent and the child. Furthermore, the interim maintenance is not only for the
7 maintenance of the wife, but also includes the expenses the respondent would bear for educating and maintaining the child. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, in fact, the maintenance amount is unreasonable as it is insufficient for the maintenance of the wife and the daughter. Therefore, the learned counsel has stressed the need for enhancing the interim maintenance amount, and the need to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
Heard both the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.
It is, indeed, trite to state that while dealing with an interim maintenance application, this Court has to strike a balance between the ability of the husband to pay the maintenance, and the requirement of the wife to not only look after herself, but also to look after a child born within the marriage.
8 8. Although the petitioner has pleaded that his income is not beyond Rs.27,000/- per month, but he has also admitted that he has two wheelers and four wheelers which he owns. There is also proof that his mother had gifted him a property, but after filing of the divorce petition, the petitioner has got the gift deed of the property cancelled. Thus, the petitioner is not justified in saying that he is solely dependent upon the income earned by him as an employee of the ICICI Home Finance. Therefore, the petitioner has not approached the learned Family Court with clean hands. The Family Court has been wise enough to see through his game plan.
While appreciating the evidence produced by both the parties, the Family Court has also noticed that the respondent has not been able to establish by cogent and convincing evidence that the family owned vast tracks of lands, a large number of residential properties. But while striking a reasonable balance between the needs of the parties, the Family Court has noticed that the respondent
9 is justified in wanting to live away from her parents, as no daughter in present day would like to be dependent on the old parents. Moreover, the Family Court has noticed that in a town like Tumakuru, the respondent would be required to shell out rentals of Rs.5,000/- for a rented accommodation. Further, the respondent is saddled with the responsibility to educate her daughter and to bring her up. Thus, the Family Court was justified in granting an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents.
For the reasons stated-above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. Therefore, the W.P.No.20450/2017 is hereby dismissed.
As far as W.P.No.35359/2017 is concerned, for seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance, suffice it to say, that since the respondent has not established the large extent of properties claimed to belong to petitioner’s family, considering the fact that the Family Court has given cogent reasons for granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/-,
10 this Court does not find the impugned order as an illegal one. Furthermore, it is merely an interim maintenance order that has been passed by the Family Court. Obviously, the Family Court shall thread bare discuss the evidence produced by both sides in order to finally decide the question of permanent alimony to be paid to the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted at the present moment.
For the reasons stated, this Court does not find any merit in W.P.No.35359/2017. Hence, the said petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE