Allowed

Smt Pavana H C @ Hemalakshmi v. Sri M D Prashanth

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2013WP/21812/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Karnataka High Court quashed the family court order awarding Rs.1,000/- interim maintenance. The court directed the court below to reconsider quantum and ordered the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; interim application restored; respondent directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month till disposal.

Smt Pavana H C @ Hemalakshmi Vs Sri M D Prashanth — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.21812/2013 (GM-FC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Pavana H C @ Hemalakshmi W/o Sri M D Prashanth Aged about 27 years Door No.335, Bhandi Palya Ganapathi Sachidananda Ashrama Mysore.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri A Madhusudhan Rao, Adv.)

¶11

And :

¶12

Sri M D Prashanth S/o Sri Mahadev Aged about 36 years R/at Patta Somanahalli Pandavapura Taluk Mandya. … Respondent

¶13

(By Sri S Amarnath, Adv.)

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the impugned order dt.18.01.2013 vide Annx-E, passed by the learned family Court Mysore allow this writ petition with costs and grant such other reliefs as this Court deem fit.

¶15

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.01.2013 passed in Crl.Misc.No.167/2011 as at Annexure-E to the petition.

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent.

¶20

Since there is certain marital discord between the parties, they are residing separately. The petitioner in that view has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.seeking

¶21

maintenance. The same is registered as Crl. Misc No.167/2011. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application seeking interim maintenance pending disposal of the petition. The Court below while disposing of the application by its order dated 18.01.2013 has awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/per month. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court.

¶22

While considering the aspect relating to quantum

¶23

of interim maintenance to be granted, the Court below has made reference to the rival claims, more particularly

¶24

¶25

the admission of the respondent in the objection statement that he is an MBA Graduate. However, in the absence of definite material available before the Court below to take note of the employment of the respondent or the income thereof, the Court below was of the view that in such circumstance, in any event, the income could be taken at Rs.3,000/- per day. Thereafter the Court has proceeded to say that the income would be at Rs.9,000/per month. In that view, a sum of Rs.1,000/- has been granted.

¶26

From the very perusal of the order, it appears that there are certain errors committed by the Court with regard to the quantum of the income that has to be taken into consideration as the same does not correlate to the daily income and the monthly income that has been arrived at by the Court. In any event, when there is no definite material, the Court below would have to reconsider the matter to come to appropriate income that the respondent is earning. However, taking note of the fact that the petition before the Court below had been

¶27

¶28

filed in the year 2011 and the petitioner is still litigating

¶29

even to get the meager interim maintenance, the additional material available on record, in this petition would have to be noticed to come to the conclusion with regard to the appropriate interim maintenance that is to be ordered pending consideration of the IA by the Court below. The document produced at Annexure-D would disclose that the respondent himself has uploaded his information on the net and apart from indicating the

¶30

qualification, he has also stated the annual income therein. Though there is no definite material in that regard, in any event considering the qualification of the respondent as indicated therein and it is his self declaration, I am of the opinion that the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month till disposal of the application in any event cannot be considered as exorbitant or exaggerated figure.

¶31

Therefore the order dated 18.01.2013 is set aside.

¶32

The interlocutory application filed under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. is restored to the file of the Court below for

¶33

¶34

reconsideration in accordance with law. Pending consideration and disposal of the application, the respondent is directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner. The said amount shall be paid on or before the 5^th of every succeeding month.

¶35

With the said direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

akc/bms

Smt Pavana H C @ Hemalakshmi v. Sri M D Prashanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pavana H C @ Hemalakshmi v. Sri M D Prashanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mir Azmathulla Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Kum Madeeha Banu Vs State of Karnataka

E Ramaswamy Vs the Commissioner

Smt.Chandramathi C Shetty Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt K Parvati Amma Vs Commissioner

Smt Zakiya Noor Zaiba Vs Government of India