Dismissed

Sri Shivalinga v. Smt Shwethakeerthy C J

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2021RPFC/112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court of Karnataka disposed of a review petition filed by a husband challenging a maintenance order. The court dismissed the petition, holding the impugned order just and proper. The court found that the trial courts were justified in crediting the petitioner's income despite disputes and lack of documentary proof.

What did the court decide?

Feature of dismissal of review petition maintaining the maintenance order of Rs. 6,000 per month per respondent.

Sri Shivalinga Vs Smt Shwethakeerthy C J — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶5

R.P.F.C. NO.112 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SHIVALINGA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/A MANGALA VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-570002.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. SHWETHAKEERTHY C.J., W/O SHIVALINGA, AGED 35 YEARS

¶12

KUMARI IMPANA M.S. D/O SHIVALINGA, AGED 16 YEARS

¶13

KUMARI INCHARA M.S. D/O SHIVALINGA, AGED 14 YEARS

¶14

RESPONDENTS ARE R/A 2711/A, II MAIN ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY-560002.

¶15

RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN – MOTHER

¶16

¶17

i.e. RESPONDENT NO.1 NAMELY SMT. S. SWETHAKEERTHY

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. R.R.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶20

THIS R.P.F.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2020 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.535/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶21

THIS R.P.F.C. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition is filed by the husband challenging the

¶24

order dated 07.01.2020 passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, by which the Court directed him to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the respondents herein as maintenance from the date of the petition.

¶25

Respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶26

being the wife and daughters respectively of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure

¶27

¶28

Code before the Family Court claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. They claimed that after respondent No.1 joined the petitioner at his matrimonial home, they lived happily till December 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was treating respondent No.1 inhumanly and had totally neglected to take care of the education and welfare of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶29

The petition was contested by the petitioner herein, who claimed that it was respondent No.1, who had neglected him. He did not dispute his relationship with respondent No.1, but he denied the allegation that he was not looking after the respondents. He contended that he was employed as a Lecturer at Oxford Engineering College and was maintaining the respondents. He contended that he was willing to take back the respondents and lead a peaceful life with them. He claimed that he was not in a position to pay the maintenance to the respondents as claimed by them, but he was willing to maintain the respondents if they joined him unconditionally.

¶30

¶31

Before the Trial Court, respondent No.1 herein

¶32

was examined as PW.1 and she marked documents Exs.P1 to P7. The petitioner herein was examined as RW.1, but he did not produce any document. The Trial Court noticed the evidence of PW.1, who deposed that the petitioner herein was employed as a Professor at M.R.I.T Engineering College, Palahalli, Mandya District and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month and that he owned four to five acres of land at Mangala village. The Trial Court noticed the evidence of PW.1 that respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were studying in 9^th standard and 2^nd standard respectively at St. Joseph Convent, K.R. Nagar town. It also noticed the evidence of PW.1 who deposed that she along with her children left the house and started residing at her parents house. The Trial Court noticed that the petitioner herein did not contend that respondent No.1 herein had any source of income. It also noticed that respondent No.1 was dependent on her parents for her livelihood as well as the livelihood of her children. Having regard to the uncontroverted evidence of PW.1 that the petitioner herein

¶33

¶34

was employed at MRIT college, the Trial Court passed an order directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the respondents herein.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner - husband has now given up his employment and pursuing agriculture and has no means to pay the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court. He also contended that he is not in a frame of mind to work and therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is at a higher side. Further, he contended that the petitioner would even now take care of respondent No.1 and their daughters and meet the expenses of their education etc.

¶36

It is not the case of the petitioner that he has

¶37

maintained the respondents at any point of time. It is not even his case that he has made any arrangement for the educational needs of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner - husband is an able bodied person, who is qualified and who had an employment in an Engineering

¶38

¶39

College and though he claimed that his salary was Rs.18,000/- per month, he did not place any material on record to establish the same. The petitioner admitted that he was employed at SJC Institute of Technology, Chikkaballapura where he worked for 8 years and thereafter at Ghousiya College, Ramanagara, where he was paid Rs.23,000/- per month as salary. Thereafter, he was employed at Sridevi Institute of Technology, Tumakuru, where he worked for six months. He admitted that he was later employed at GS ITI College, Bengaluru, on a monthly salary of Rs.23,000/-. Again he joined employment at KSIT college where he was paid monthly salary of Rs.28,000/-. Thereafter, he joined RGIT College and then oxford college and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Thus, in the year 2002, when he married respondent No.1, his income was Rs.23,000/- per month and as on the date of his deposition, his income was Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioner failed to prove his income at a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Even otherwise, it is improbable that a man who was earning

¶40

¶41

Rs.23,000/- per month in the year 2002 would be paid Rs.30,000/after 16 years when the petition for maintenance was filed. Even otherwise, the pay that the petitioner claims is far less than the pay scale fixed by the University Grants Commission or for that matter the Visvesvaraya Technological University. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in considering the income of the petitioner at a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month from his employment as a Lecturer in MRIT college. Though the petitioner - husband disputed the fact that he possessed four to five acres of land, in his deposition, he deposed that he possessed only 53 guntas of land which was his share out of the total extent. However, the petitioner did not produce any material in this regard to establish that he had only 53 guntas of land. Therefore, this contention was doubted by the Trial Court and there is no reason to detract from such finding.

¶42

In that view of the matter, having regard to

¶43

the cost of living as well as the educational expenses of

¶44

¶45

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and needs of respondent No.1, it is felt that the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶46

Hence, this petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

sma

Sri Shivalinga v. Smt Shwethakeerthy C J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivalinga v. Smt Shwethakeerthy C J

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

Krishnegowda Vs Eshwarappa

Mahadevaswamy Vs Veena B

Sri Umesh Vs Smt Deepa

Sri. H. G. Renukappa Vs Smt. Puttalakshmamma

The Managing Director Vs Y.P.Srinivasa Shetty

Smt. M N Rajeshwari Vs Sri. Gurusiddappa