Petitioner challenged interim maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC alleging income understatement and wife's income. Court found discrepancy could be addressed in main case and awarded sum not exorbitant. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed; interim maintenance order stands; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
W.P.Nos.17341/2013 & 17779/2013 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARENDRA BABU H V S/O VENKATANARAYANA AGED 35 YHEARS R/O # 331 BRAHMINS STREET DODDABALLAPUR BENGALURU-561203 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M VINOD KUMAR & SRI K A HARI KRISHNA, ADVS.)
AND:
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR UNDER THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHO IS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND AND REP. BY 1ST RESPONDENT
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 1874 3RD CROSS POLICE LAYOUT SARDAR VILLABAI PATEL NAGAR NADANAHALLI, MYSORE
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADV.)
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ANNX-A ORDER DATED 7.9.12 PASSED IN C.MISC NO.302/11 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY JUDGE AT MYSORE & QUASH THE ANNX-A ORDER DATED 5.4.13 PASSED IN C. MISC NO.302/11 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY JUDGE AT MYSORE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the
order dated 07.09.2012 passed in C.Mis No.302/2011.
The petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. Due to certain marital discord, the petitioner and the first respondent are residing separately. In that context, since the first and the second respondents were not in a position to maintain themselves have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in C.Misc. No.302/2011. In the said proceedings, an application was filed seeking for grant of interim maintenance. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has ordered the interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.2,500/- to the second respondent as also a sum of
3
Rs.15,000/- by way of litigation expenses. The petitioner
claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court.
4
5
when the interim application was taken up for consideration, the first respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, being aware of the place where the petitioner was employed and the salary which he was earning when they were together has put forth the contention before the Court below that he was employed in Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd. and is earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. Certainly, if the petitioner was employed elsewhere or if he was drawing a lesser salary, it was incumbent on the petitioner to produce the documents before the Court below to controvert the contentions put forth by the respondents herein. In the absence of the same, the Court below taking note of the calculation and the status of the employer of the petitioner has taken into consideration, the said salary and the quantum of interim maintenance has been granted. Though the petitioner has produced the salary certificate at Annexure-F in the instant petition, the correctness and genuineness of the same is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6
certificate is taken into consideration, it would indicate that the net pay of the petitioner therein is also shown as Rs.23,011/-. In that circumstance, when there is no dispute to the fact that the first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is their minor son, keeping in view the expenses that would be involved for the maintenance of the son and the educational expenses, the total compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded as interim maintenance to the respondents in any event cannot be considered as exorbitant or exaggerated so as to call for interference.
Annexure-E is only encumbrance certificate wherein, certain purchase of property is shown. A perusal of the same would indicate that the purchase of the property is in the name of the parents as well as the first respondent herein. If the parents have thought it fit to secure the life of the first respondent by purchasing the property, that in itself cannot be an assumption to indicate that the first
7
respondent has sufficient income to maintain herself or that income is derived from the property.
in any event would not call for interference. If at all, the petitioner has any records to show that he has lesser income, the same could be produced when the main matter is taken up for consideration before the Court below, wherein the Court would consider all aspect of the matter and thereafter arrive at a conclusion with an appropriate maintenance to be granted. It is needless to mention that any of the observations made herein above would not affect the case of the parties when the main matter is taken up for consideration.
In that view of the matter, the present petition assailing the impugned order is devoid of merit. The same is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE akc/bms
Sd/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance order of Rs. 7,500 for wife and Rs. 2,500 for minor son is exorbitant given the petitioner's income.
Whether lack of salary certificate or disputed income figures warrant quashing the interim maintenance award.
Whether the wife's alleged income from a beauty parlour or property purchase negates the need for interim maintenance.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI NARENDRA BABU H V
SMT. SHRUTHI N BABU
NISCHAL H N
BOPANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
