SRI SIDDARTH @ SIDDAPPA S/O TAMMANNA BABALESHWAR, vs. SMT.ANNAPURNA W/O SIDDARTH @ SIDDAPPA BABALESHWAR

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH-2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR RPFC No.200027/2015 BETWEEN: Sri. Siddarth @ Siddappa S/o Tammanna Babaleshwar, Age: 50 years, Occ: A.E.E. (The petitioner is a Asst. Engineer-II) Alamatti UKP, Alamatti UDP, working at AEE Sub-Divn. No.II, Old Gudadinni Plot, Mudhol, Tq. Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot-587313. .... Petitioner (By Sri Basavaraj. R. Math, Advocate) AND: Smt. Annapurna W/o Siddarth @ Siddappa Babaleshwar, Age: 41 years, Occ: Household work, R/o Hanamasagar, now residing at Mudhol-587313. BagalkotDistrict. .... Respondent (By Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)

2 This Petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2015 passed in Crl.Misc.No.120/2014 pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Vijayapur, allowing the petition is filed U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the Court made the following: O R D E R Sri.Basavaraj R.Math learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Mahantesh Patil learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. Perused the records secured from the trial Court. The marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 03.02.1995 as per Hindu customs and privileges. They led a happy marital life till 2001. According to the wife a female child was born out of said wed lock. It was the grievance of wife that her husband had fallen to bad vices and was not taking care of her and she was driven out of her matrimonial

3 home. It was further contended that respondent obtained an exparte decree of divorce and is not maintaining her though he is working as Assistant Executive Engineer at Upper Krishna Project Almatti and was earning handsome salary of ` 40,000/- per month and on account of his refusal to maintain her and having neglected to maintain her, she sought for maintenance. 3. On service of notice, respondent-husband appeared and filed his statement of objections and denied the averments made in the petition. Both parties tendered their evidence before trial Court and on appreciation of same, trial Court allowed petition with costs and has awarded a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner-wife from the date of petition till further orders, by order dated 05.02.2015. Questioning

4 the correctness and legality of the said order petitioner- husband before this Court. 4. It is the contention of Mr.Basavaraj R.Math learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that maintenance awarded by the trial Court is highly excessive, exorbitant and it has not taken note of the fact that petitioner has to maintain his three daughters and aged parents in all six members from out of his meager salary of ` 38,952/- and as such he prays for modifying the order passed by the trial Court by reducing the maintenance awarded. 5. Per contra Sri.Mahantesh Patil learned counsel appearing for respondent-wife would support the orders passed by trial Court. 6. Having heard the learned Advocators appearing for parties and on bestowing my careful and anxious consideration to rival contentions raised at the

5 bar, the records would disclose that during the course of trial the petitioner-wife had made a statement that her husband had developed illicit relationship with one Smt.Hanumanthi and through her, petitioner had a daughter by name Kumari Sharvani and birth certificate of said Kumari Sharavani was produced and marked as Ex.P.1 which indicated that her date of birth is 26.10.2009. However, respondent had contended that he had married Smt.Hanumanthi on 18.02.2013. As such, it came to be held by trial Court that when marriage of petitioner with Smt.Hanumanti was solemnized on 18.02.2013 and birth certificate of Kum.Sharvani - Ex.P.1 indicated that she was born in the year 2009 is sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that much prior to their marriage the respondent-husband was in relationship with Smt.Hanumanthi and as such it has rightly come to a conclusion that claim of wife that she has been

6 neglected by her husband is correct. It is because of said reason and also on account of husband having obtained an exparte judgment and decree of divorce against his wife cumulatively resulted there being discordant note between husband and wife and as such, they have lived separately. The respondent-husband cannot contend that he is not required to maintain his wife namely the respondent herein. 7. It is also not in dispute that daughter born through the first wife namely the respondent herein are residing with revision petitioner apart from Kum.Sharvani that second daughter born out of second marriage is also being taken care of by the petitioner herein. In the background of these facts and also taking into consideration that revision petitioner husband will have to take care of his aged parents, trial Court has examined the financial capacity of the husband to pay

7 maintenance and the quantum of maintenance he would be required to pay respondent herein. In this background, trial Court has considered the salary certificate – Ex.R-22 which reflects that in November, 2014 petitioner herein was drawing a gross salary of ` 38,952/-. 8. Though Mr.Basavaraj R Math, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that deduction from gross salary also has to be taken into consideration while considering financial capacity of husband to pay maintenance, same has not been rightly not taken into consideration by trial Court inasmuch as, amounts which are being deducted from petitioner’s salary is towards loans borrowed by him and premium for LIC policies which would accrue to his accounts only. The only deduction which can be taken is, income tax and professional tax. The sum total of these two

8 components would be ` 1,450/-. Hence, taking into consideration that gross income of the revision petitioner being ` 37,502/- per month as on November, 2014 and deduction of ` 1,450/- is made, his gross salary would be ` 36,052/-. Thus, maintenance of ` 10,000/- which has been awarded by trial Court to the respondent-wife cannot be held either as exorbitant or excessive. Hence, I do not find any other good ground to entertain the petition. Accordingly, petition stands rejected by confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Sd/-

JUDGE sn