RANJINI VANKULPATI vs. VANKULAPATI VINAY

Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitioner/wife Smt.Ranjini Vankulpati and the respondent/husband Sri.Vankulpati Vinay have filed these two cross writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C.No.3391/2014 directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to be paid by the respondent/husband to the petitioner/wife and for

Besides the said sum, a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses was directed to be paid by the respondent/husband to the wife.

The relevant reasons recorded by the learned court below at paragraph-18 onwards read thus: “18. From the above, it becomes clear that the respondent sold her property for Rs.14,63,000/-. Even then it is the duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain the respondent and her daughter. It is admitted that from March 2014, she has been residing with her daughter in her mother’s house. The respondent has admitted her daughter to a school, for which, she has to pay school fee, admission fee, donation fee for transportation for purchasing school book, uniform and other miscellaneous. Further they have to take food for their survival besides they require money for clothing. Though, the petitioner has stated that the respondent has completed her company

In one of the document produced by the petitioner he has invested about Rs.30,00,000/- towards the Hotel business and has taken a partner B A Ravindra who has also invested Rs.30,00,000/-. Further he has also got secured and unsecured loan of Rs.25,00,000/-. Further he wants to borrow Rs.20,00,000/- from Corporation Bank to improve his business. Though he has produced income tax returns, wherein it is stated that his gross total income is Rs.2,78,331/-, I think this is only for tax purpose. A person who has capability of investing Rs.30,00,000/- and getting a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and making an application for seeking further financial requirement of Rs.20,00,000/- from the bank, it is clear that he is affluent and having sufficient income from the business. Otherwise, no person would lend money to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- as secured and unsecured loan and no bank would lend Rs.20,00,000/- for improvement of the business.

Though the respondent has contended that she has to spend Rs.70,000/- towards medical and school expenses of her daughter and that she requires further money for their maintenance, no school receipts for having paid the school fee, and admission fee of her daughter is produced. It cannot be held that by not producing the same, she has not spent any money for education. By taking all these into consideration it is the foremost duty of the father to provide good education to his daughter, hence I am of the opinion that the entire school expenses have to be borne by the petitioner. Further now a days in view of the escalation in the price of all commodities it has become very difficult for a person to live in a city like Bangalore with meager amount. The respondent has to live with dignity. I am of the opinion that besides directing the petitioner to bear the entire school expenses of the girl child Indira, a sum of Rs.40,000/- if the petitioner is directed to pay as monthly maintenance to the respondent and to the daughter would meet the ends of justice.

Though the respondent has not produced any receipt for having paid the advocate fee to show that he has incurred litigation expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-. Since she is defending the case by engaging an advocate she has to pay him the professional charges besides meeting the expenses of coming to the court, attending the case and returning to the home. Hence I am of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses if ordered would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative and pass the following:- Order I A No.6 filed U/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the respondent/wife is hereby partly allowed.

While on the one hand learned Counsel for the petitioner/wife Sri.Yogesh V.Kotemath submitted that, the respondent/husband is an Architect and also runs a hotel business and his monthly income is Rs.10 lakhs and above and therefore, the interim maintenance awarded by the court below at Rs.40,000/- per month is abysmally low, on the other hand, learned Counsel for

Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court does not require any interference, for the reasons given in the impugned order resulting in the order of monthly maintenance arrived by the court below. The monthly maintenance awarded in favour of the petitioner/wife and the minor child, neither appears to be excessive nor abysmally low.

Looking to the qualifications and source of earnings as discussed by the learned court below, the said interim order passed by the court below under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not require any interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.