Dismissed

Sri K Sharath Babu v. Smt. Nalini Cherukuri

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2020MFA/6496/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a husband's appeal against the Family Court's award of Rs. 6,00,000/- as permanent alimony to his divorced wife. The Court held that the appellant's financial assets and the respondent's needs justified the quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

The husband is directed to pay the balance Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent within three months. The deposited amount shall be released to her.

Sri K Sharath Babu Vs Smt. Nalini Cherukuri — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

M.F.A.No.6496/2016

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Sri. K.Sharath Babu, Son of K.Kondapa Naidu, Aged about 44 years, Residing of Sai Teja, Door No.1-175/24, Bhaskara Colony, Post: Kulai-Hosabettu, Mangaluru – 575 019, D.K.

¶11

Presently residing at B.K.Agraharam P.O & Village, Jaladanki (Mandalam) SPSR Nellore (District), Andra Pradesh -524 223. … Appellant (By Sri. Vishwajith Rai.M, Advocate)

¶12

AND: Smt. Nalini Cherukuri, Daughter of Brahmaiah Cherukuri, Aged about 42 years,

¶13

¶14

Residing of Mathrushree, Near Mujrudeshwara Ice Factory, Post: Kulai – Hosabettu, Mangaluru – 575 019. D.K. … Respondent

¶15

(By Sri.P.P.Hegde, Advocate)

¶16

This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2016 passed in M.C.No.207 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Judge Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, allowing the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶17

This appeal coming on for Admission this day, SANJAY GOWDA, J., delivered the following:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in M.C.No.207/2015 is assailed by the husband only on the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the respondent – wife.

¶20

While granting the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

¶21

¶22

Marriage Act, 1955, the Family Court awarded permanent alimony of `6,00,000/- to the respondent – wife. The same is challenged in this appeal.

¶23

At this stage itself, it may be stated that pursuant to the interim order of stay granted on 16.03.2017, a sum of 3,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited by the appellant - husband which he has deposited on 03.04.2017. Therefore, in substance, the appeal is only with regard to the balance of the amount of 3,00,000/-.

¶24

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties through video conference.

¶25

The undisputed facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 21.05.1995 at K.T.P.S. Colony Hall, New Paloncha Post, Kothagudem Taluk, Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh State and they initially stayed in Andhra Pradesh and thereafter, came to Mangaluru and started residing therein and out of this wedlock, they had two

¶26

¶27

male children. The appellant is a Contractor, while the respondent is post graduate holder of M.Sc. degree in Mathematics.

¶28

It was the contention of the appellant – husband that the respondent being a post graduate holder of M.Sc. degree in Mathematics and a lecturer was insulting the appellant for his lesser educational qualification and his low standard of living. It was his case that the respondent in the month of November, 2010 went to her parent’s house without informing him and refused to return. It was his case that when he requested her to return, he was abused by the respondent using filthy language. It was his case that despite several efforts made by him to start his marital life, the respondent did not oblige and having no other option, he was constrained to file a petition seeking for dissolution of marriage.

¶29

¶30

The respondent entered appearance and contested the petition. She denied all the allegations made against her and contended that it was the appellant who continuously subjected her to a series of physical and mental abuse and had made her life miserable. She stated that her father was a guarantor to the loan obtained for the purpose of building a house and she pledge 50 sovereigns of gold for the purpose of building a house and he had deceitfully transferred the said property in his individual name and he had never ever treated her and her children properly. She stated that the entire house hold expenses was being met by her and as a matter of fact, he had been trained under her father and both of them had lived in the house of her father for about one and a half years and later shifted to Surathkal. She stated that the original title deeds of the property situated in Palvanncha, Kammam District, Telangana, which had been gifted to her by her father

¶31

¶32

were in her custody and were forcibly snatched by the appellant and he refused to return the same.

¶33

The respondent put forth the plea that she was

¶34

abused continuously with vulgar words and the appellant had disregarded all her emotional needs and he was always in the habit of doubting her chastity. She also categorically denied the plea that she had abandoned her marital home and she contended that in the month of November, she had visited her parent’s after informing the appellant. She stated that when she returned back, she was shocked to find that outer door had been locked and she was not allowed to enter the house. She stated that all her gold ornaments were withheld by the appellant and she was thrown out of the house with only her bare clothes. She stated that she was earning only a sum of `30,000/- per month which was hardly sufficient to meet her expenses as also the expenses of her children. She stated that her elder son was studying in B.E. and huge expenses were borne by her. She stated

¶35

¶36

that appellant had failed to provide any maintenance to the children and had deserted the respondent and subjected her to grave acts of cruelty.

¶37

The Family Court, on consideration of the pleadings

¶38

framed following three points for consideration:

¶39

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has treated him with cruelty?

¶40

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage against the respondent herein?

¶41

If so, to what order the petitioner is entitled to?”

¶42

Before the Family Court, the appellant examined

¶43

himself as P.W.1 and got another witness examined as

¶44

P.W.2. He altogether marked six documents. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and also

¶45

¶46

examined two other witnesses as R.W.2 and R.W.3. She produced two documents in support of her case.

¶47

The Family Court, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the appellant had proved that the respondent had treated him with cruelty and was entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage. The Family Court accordingly ordered for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

¶48

However, while ordering for dissolution of marriage, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was liable to pay a sum of `6,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent.

¶49

As stated earlier, it is only this part of the judgment and decree of the Family Court by which a sum of `6,00,000/- has been awarded as permanent alimony

¶50

to the respondent, which is under challenge in this appeal by the husband.

¶51

¶52

The principal contention of the learned counsel for

¶53

the appellant is that the respondent was admittedly a post graduate degree holder in Mathematics and she was working as a lecturer in Mahesh P.U. College and was earning a handsome salary and thus having regard to the fact that she was able to maintain herself quite comfortably, the Family Court ought not to have awarded a huge sum of `6,00,000/- as permanent alimony.

¶54

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that having regard to the status of the appellant and the assets that he owned, which had been borne out in the evidence adduced before the Family Court, an award of only a sum of `6,00,000/- as permanent alimony was meager and ought not to be disturbed in this appeal.

¶55

¶56

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, the only question to be considered in this appeal is :

¶57

“(1) Whether the award of `6,00,000/- by the Family Court as permanent alimony was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶58

(2) What order”

¶59

The Family Court in order to arrive at the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to a sum of `6,00,000/- as permanent alimony has given the following reasons at paragraph 27:

¶60

“27. The respondent has admitted that she is

¶61

working as a lecturer in Mahesh P.U College. She denies that she is earning Rs.60,00/-p.m. Accordingly to her, she is earning salary of Rs.32,000/- per month and not as stated by the petitioner. But the respondent has not produced

¶62

any documentary evidence to prove that her income is only Rs.32,000+Rs.3,000/- totally

¶63

¶64

Rs.35,000/- per month. However, as a lecturer in Mahesh P.U College, she may be earning more than Rs.35,000/- p.m. Taking into consideration of these facts, I am of the view that it would be just and proper in the interest of justice and equity that, if the petitioner is directed to pay permanent alimony to the respondent, she would take care of herself as well as of her children and their education. Considering her income also, in my opinion, she is entitled for permanent alimony of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the petitioner. Accordingly, my answer to point nos.1 and 2

¶65

are in the Affirmative.

¶66

On reading of the said reasoning, it would indicate

¶67

that the Family Court has taken into consideration that the respondent was earning a sum of 35,000/- per month by virtue of her being a Lecturer and also by imparting tuitions. The Family Court has noticed that the said sum of 35,000/- per month would not be sufficient in order to take care of the needs of the respondent and

¶68

¶69

her children and their educational needs and therefore, it was awarding a sum of `6,00,000/- as permanent alimony.

¶70

As stated above, the appellant had deposited a sum of 3,00,000/- out of 6,00,000/-.

¶71

The evidence on record clearly indicates that the appellant was a contractor and was engaged in construction activity and was also engaged in agricultural operations and was earning good income. The Family Court has noticed that the appellant was a Proprietor of Sai Theja Construction and he had constructed a house called ‘Sai Theja House’ in Mangaluru which had been sold by him for `52,00,000/-.

¶72

In our view, having regard to the assets owned by the appellant and the finding recorded by the Family Court that he had constructed a house and sold it for 52,00,000/-, the award of a sum of 6,00,000/- as

¶73

¶74

permanent alimony cannot be said to be arbitrary or

¶75

improper in any manner.

¶76

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent was working as a Lecturer and earning an adequate sum of money and therefore permanent alimony could not be awarded cannot be accepted. It is observed that merely because the respondent was earning a salary, by itself would not disentitle her for any permanent alimony. It is to be stated here that the respondent was working basically because she possessed adequate educational qualifications and would want to “keep her body and soul together” and live a life of dignity and ensure that her children secure a good education for themselves. This attribute of the respondent cannot be used by the appellant to disown his liability to provide permanent alimony. In our view, the award of Rs. 6,00,000/- as permanent alimony is reasonable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, reject the

¶77

¶78

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as being devoid of any substance.

¶79

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed .

¶80

The amount deposited before this Court be released to the respondent – wife, after due identification. The appellant – husband to pay the balance amount of `3,00,000/- to the respondent – wife within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶81

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶82

Registry to transfer the TCR to the concerned Family Court forthwith.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

PKS

Sri K Sharath Babu v. Smt. Nalini Cherukuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Sharath Babu v. Smt. Nalini Cherukuri

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

Sadashiva K Amin Vs Vijaya Lakshmi

Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri Sadashiva K Amin

Sri Y N Siddalingaiah Vs the Commissionerfor Endowment

Sri Kiran P Vs the Commissioner

Smt T R Sandhyarani Vs Sri Narasimhayya

Sri Paramesha R Vs Smt Ashwini S