Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No.1007/2015 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.2203/2015
WP No.1007/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri Navnit Kumar.K.A., S/o Anil Kumar, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.7/14, 2nd Floor, Seetha Circle, Bank Colony, BSK I Stage, Bangalore – 560 050.
…Petitioner
(By Sri Shrishaila.D, Advocate)
AND:
Smt.Namitha, W/o Navnit Kumar.K.A., Aged about 23 years, R/at No.118, G & C -1, 3rd Main Road, NHCS Layout, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore – 560 079.
… Respondent
(By Sri S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 8.12.2014 made by the learned V Additional Family Judge at Bangalore on IA No.III, in M.C.No.220/2013 on her file, marked as Annexure – A to this writ petition.
WP No.2203/2015
BETWEEN:
Smt.Namitha, W/o Sri K.A.Navnit Kumar, Aged about 24 years, D/o Sri M.S.Ravindra, R/at No.118, G -1, 3rd Main Road, NHCS Layout, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore – 560 079.
…Petitioner
(By Sri S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate)
AND:
Sri Navnit Kumar.K.A. S/o Anil Kumar K.A., Aged about 25 years, R/o No.384/385, Shambhavi Archede, 3rd floor, 6th Main Road, Nagendra Block, BSK III Stage, Bangalore – 560 050.
… Respondent
(By Sri Shrishaila.D, Advocate)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order on I.A.No.IV made in M.C.No.220/2013, passed by the V Additional
3 Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore vide Annexure – E, dated 8.12.2014 by the issue of writ of certiorari any other appropriate writ or order as the case may be.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
W.P.No.1007/2015 and W.P.No.2203/2015 are filed by the husband and wife respectively challenging the order passed by the Court of the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A.No.3 and 4 in M.C.No.220/2013.
The narration of the facts is with reference to the ranks of the parties in W.P.No.1007/2015. The facts of the case in brief are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 4.11.2010. In their wedlock, a girl child is born on 17.7.2012. Complaining of the ill-treatment at the hands of the petitioner husband, the respondent wife left the matrimonial home in December 2011. The petitioning husband filed M.C.No.220/2013 seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed I.A.No.3 seeking the interim maintenance and litigation expenses and
4 I.A.No.4 seeking the reimbursement of medical expenses. The Family Court passed the impugned order on I.A.No.3 awarding the interim maintenance of `15,000/- per month to the respondent and `5,000/- per month to the child. It rejected I.A.No.4 for the payment of medical expenses.
Aggrieved by the granting of interim maintenance, the husband has filed W.P.No.1007/2014. The wife has filed W.P.No.2203/2015 aggrieved by the Family Court’s order refusing to grant the medical expenses.
Sri Shrishaila D, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had not produced any documents along with I.A.No.3. Only at the time of argument, she produced VAT forms, which are at the most reflective of the business turn- over and not of the net income. He submits that the petitioner had no opportunity to dispute the relevance and genuineness of the documents produced by the respondent. He emphatically asserts that petitioner’s monthly income is only `24,500/- and that
5 therefore it is impossible for the petitioner to pay huge sums of money awarded by the Family Court.
He submits that the petitioner is ready to take back his wife. Without any reason or rhyme, the respondent wife has forsaken the matrimonial home.
Urging these submissions, he prays for the quashing of the impugned order and for remanding the matter to the Family Court.
Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, the learned counsel for the respondent wife submits that it is the bounden duty of the husband to look after his wife. He submits that the petitioner is onto saree business with his father. He submits that the petitioner’s income is about `2 lakhs per month. He submits that all along it has been the defence of the petitioner he is ready to take back the respondent wife, but he has never taken any stand in the objection statement filed in response to I.A.No.3 that he is incapable of paying the amounts towards her interim maintenance.
He submits that the petitioner has not produced any document to show what is his monthly income. According to Sri Hegde Hudlamane, the VAT form produced by the respondent before the Family Court shows that the petitioner’s monthly turn- over is about `9 lakhs and it can be safely presumed that 10% of it is the monthly income of the petitioner. The said amount aggregates to `90,000/- per month. He submits that the petitioner has not even produced the IT returns. It is with great difficulty that the respondent obtained the VAT forms and produced them before the Family Court. He submits that the petitioner is so very rich that he owns i10 car.
Sri Shrishaila quickly joins issues with Sri Hegde Hudlamane by submitting that the petitioner has availed of the financial assistance to buy the said car.
On being asked as to how the medical expenses can be awarded for the period prior to or preceding the presentation of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he fairly concedes to the legal position that the respondent wife is not
7 entitled to the same. However, he hastens to add that it is open to the respondent to claim the future medical expenses from the date of presentation of the application.
W.P.No.2203/2015 is dismissed as the Trial Court has rightly refused to grant the amounts towards the medical expenses prior to the date of filing the petition and which legal position is rightly appreciated by the learned counsel for the respondent.
I am left with the examination of the order granting the interim maintenance on I.A.No.3, which is the subject-matter of W.P.No.1007/2015.
On being asked as to whether the petitioner has paid any amounts towards the interim maintenance of his wife and daughter, Sri Shrishaila submits that nothing is paid. The impugned order is passed on 8.12.2014. There has been no stay of the impugned order in these proceedings. Mere filing of the petition does not act as the stay. To show his bonafides, the petitioner ought to have given some amounts to his wife and daughter. The petitioner has not
8 produced any income tax returns to show as to what is his income. He has not produced any documents to show that i10 car was purchased by him availing of the financial assistance. It is not in dispute that he owns i10 car. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner owns Algar Fashions situated in Chickpet, Bangalore. The documents like VAT forms on which the respondent wife could lay her hands are produced by the respondent. The submission that the petitioner’s monthly income is `24,500/- is being made for the first time in these proceedings.
My perusal of the statement of objections filed by the petitioner to the respondent’s I.A.No.3 does not disclose that he has made the averment that the respondent is having any income of her own.
Considering the socio-economic status of the parties, their requirements, the Family Court has awarded the interim maintenance of `15,000/- per month to the respondent and `5,000/- per month to the daughter and the litigation expenses of
9 `25,000/-. I am not persuaded to accede to the contention of the petitioner that the said amounts are on the higher side.
In the result, I dismiss both the petitions.
I am informed at the bar that M.C.No.220/2013 is set down for the cross-examination of the petitioner. The ends of justice would be met by my directing both the parties to co-operate with the Family Court in the speedy disposal of M.C.No.220/2013. The Family Court is called upon to make every possible endeavour to dispose of M.C.No.220/2013 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today’s order.
Sd/- JUDGE