Dismissed

Shri. Mallappa S/O. Shrishail Mali v. Smt. Chandrawwa W/O. Shrishail Mali

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2020WP/104533/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an interim maintenance order under the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial Court correctly considered the petitioner's agricultural income and the wife's lack of independent means, finding no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order granting interim maintenance is dismissed.

Shri. Mallappa S/O. Shrishail Mali Vs Smt… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.104533/2018 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. SHRISHAIL MALI AGE:34 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANNOLI, TALUK:JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.ANAND BAGEWADI, ADV. FOR SRI.SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT. CHANDRAWWA W/O. SHRISHAIL MALI AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O. SHRI SURESH S/O. NINGAPPA MALI, R/O. TIGANI BIDARI, TALUK:VIJAYPUR, DIST:VIJAYPUR.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAJENDRA R PATIL, ADV. FOR SRI.SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:11.06.2018 IN M.C.NO.56/2016 ON IA.NO.II PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI VIDE ANNEXURE-"A".

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner-husband in M.C.No.56/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi is before this Court in this writ petition assailing the order dated 11.06.2018 passed on I.A.No.2 directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent-wife.

¶19

The petitioner-husband filed M.C.No.56/2016 under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking restitution of conjugal rights and alternatively for dissolution of marriage with respondent-wife. It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 06.05.2009. From the marriage they have three children. Till January-2016 the petitioner and the respondent were living together. As differences arose between them, they are residing separately. Hence, the petitioner filed matrimonial case seeking restitution of

¶20

¶21

conjugal rights and alternatively for dissolution of marriage. In the said proceedings, the respondent-wife made an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming interim monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner-husband. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-husband. However, the trial Court on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, under the impugned order, allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/p.m. to the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-husband is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner-

¶25

husband would submit that the petitioner has no

¶26

¶27

income and he is eking out his livelihood by coolie work. As such, he would not be in a position to pay the maintenance ordered by the trial Court. It is also his submission that the petitioner is ready and willing to take back the wife and children. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the respondent-wife had also initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.19/2017 and in the said proceedings the respondent is granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- p.m. As such, the respondent-wife would not be entitled for further maintenance. Thus, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.

¶28

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that the respondent has no income of her own and she has to look after herself and two children as one child is with the petitionerhusband. She is not in a position to look after herself and two children. As such, she has filed application for

¶29

¶30

grant of maintenance which is allowed by the trial Court. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has agricultural land and he has agricultural income. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent points out that by order dated 24.09.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.19/2017 the trial Court has ordered that maintenance granted in M.C.No.56/2016 is to be deducted from the maintenance ordered in the said Crl.Misc.No.19/2017 and balance to be paid. In that circumstances, he submits that the respondent-wife would get only Rs.4,000/- p.m. as ordered. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶31

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as stated in the writ petition on 06.05.2009. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent from their marriage have three children and one child is with the petitionerhusband and the wife is looking after two children. The

¶32

¶33

respondent-wife has no independent income of her own. She is residing with her parents. The petitionerhusband has agricultural lands, RTC extracts of which are placed on record as Ex.P.2 in Crl.Misc.No.19/2017. The marriage is not in dispute. The petitioner being the husband has a duty to look after the wife and children. On going through the judgment dated 24.09.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.19/2017, it is clear that maintenance granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to be paid after deducting the maintenance awarded under M.C.No.56/2016. Looking to the entire case on hand and on examination of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner-husband has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Shri. Mallappa S/O. Shrishail Mali v. Smt. Chandrawwa W/O. Shrishail Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mallappa S/O. Shrishail Mali v. Smt. Chandrawwa W/O. Shrishail Mali

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.Ashok Ballolli S/O Nagappa Ballolli Vs State of Karnataka

Harijana Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Hussain S/O Rajesaheb Warimani Vs Smt.Zoharabi W/O Dastgirsab Mulla

Shri.Manjunath S/O Satish Amate Vs Conservation Assistant Archaeological Survey

Sri. Shrikant S/O Rajaram Mali Vs the Karnataka State Souharda Federal

Hanamant Bhimappa Kurer Vs the Executive Engineer