Dismissed

Mr. Sanal v. Mrs. Geoviya

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021RPFC/138/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed the husband's revision petition challenging the maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000 per month granted to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court. The Court found no grounds to set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition rejected. Arrears, if any, to be paid within two months. Amount deposited before this Court permitted to be withdrawn.

Mr. Sanal Vs Mrs. Geoviya — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

¶6

R.P.F.C. No.138 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.SANAL JOSEPH BERNARD PARAYCADE, S/O. MR.BERNARD PARAYACADE, AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT 102, KALINA VILLAGE, 1^ST FLOOR, SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI- 400012 WORKING AT TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE HOSPITAL, DR.E.BORGES MARG, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASTRA.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MRS.GEOVIYA GEORGE NENMANIKKARA, D/O. MR.NENMANIKKARA POULOSE GEORGE, W/O. MR.SANAL JOSEPH BERNARD PARAYACADE, AGED 29 YEARS, R/AT 102, 1^ST FLOOR, REJOICE APTS, PINTO’S LANE, BUNTS HOSTEL, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT. PIN-575004.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.S.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.7.2016 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.27/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT D.K, MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶16

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition is presented by one Mr.Sanal Joseph Bernard Paraycade under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, against the judgment and decree passed in Crl.Misc.27/2015 dated 12.7.2016 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, wherein the petition filed by the revision respondent was allowed. The operative portion of order passed by the Family Court is extracted as under:

¶19

“The petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and Section 20 and 22 r/w 26 of

¶20

¶21

D.V.Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part.

¶22

The respondent is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/p.m., as maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petitioner till her lifetime or until her remarriage.

¶23

The respondent is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner is gi ven liberty to proceed with the claim of monetary relief under Domestic Violence Act and also for permanent alimony in the petition filed by her in the Family Court at Bandra”.

¶25

The brief facts of the case as per the order

¶26

extracted from the said court is as under;

¶27

“At the relevant point of time the respondent was studying in M.D. Pharmacology in A.I.I.M.S New Delhi which is a pioneer institute in India. He intended to join M.D. either in surgery or Neurosurgery in A.I.I.M.S New Delhi in the month of November 2013 which was one of the most sought for programmes in said institution.

¶28

¶29

The respondent had portrayed himself as something extraordinary and hence, the petitioner and her parents decided to go ahead with the marriage.

¶30

On 4-8-2013 the petitioners’ family made the respondent’s family in Mumbai in their house. They portrayed themselves as highly cultured and decent and warm people. They stated that they did not want any dowry. The respondent’s parents told that they would visit the petitioner’s parental house at Mangaluru and then confirm the date of marriage. During the 2^nd week of August 2013 the mother of the respondent had never informed the petitioner’s mother that the respondent had availed Rs.15,00,000/- loan from his brother for traveling and other expenses in U.S., for his education. Further for the operation of respondent’s mother who had breast cancer and for the father who was on heart patient the respondent had borrowed loan. It is further stated by the mother of the respondent that they wanted Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. At that time, the petitioner had

¶31

¶32

developed some sort of friendly relationship with the respondent and petitioner’s parents having only one daughter agreed for the payment of dowry and arranged for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from personal savings and also by selling most of the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner’s mother and also from borrowing money from relatives and friends.

¶33

The petitioner’s parents arranged for the money and in September 2013 the respondent’s parents visited the petitioner’s parental house at Mangaluru on 10^th September 2013 and stayed in the house of the petitioners for last 3 days. During that period the respondent’s mother told that she requires Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and the petitioner’s father handed over the cash of Rs.10,00,000/-. At that time, the entire family of the petitioner and the friends of the petitioner’s father were present. It was decided that the expenses of the marriage would be divided equally and the marriage has to be held in Mumbai. It was also decided that the petitioner’s family members would hold the

¶34

¶35

reception in Mangaluru after the wedding. It was further decided that after the marriage the petitioner and the respondent would stay in Delhi where the respondent was taying and the petitioner would find a job in Delhi.”

¶36

Sri. G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel

¶37

for the petitioner-husband submits that there is no continuity of marital life even for a reasonable period at any point of time and also there is no consummation of marriage between the spouses.

¶38

The marriage was solemnized on 12.10.2013 and after 3 days of the marriage, the husband had to go to Delhi to attend to his work at A.I.I.M.S because of which the respondent-wife was left with the parents house of the petitioner-husband. Thereafter the marital life was miserable to the petitioner-wife. It is stated that her in-laws i.e., her mother-in-law used to talk cruel and give torture to her and made her stay

¶39

¶40

miserable. It is also stated that her husband the revision-petitioner never used to attend her phones calls and has failed to maintain marital life. It is further submitted that the husband-petitioner herein never refused to maintain the wife even though she has presented the petition by suppressing the fact about her filing a divorce petition against the revisionhusband in Andhra Pradesh and also has made application for permanent alimony. It is also stated that even the husband revision-petitioner has made a written request to his wife to come and join him, but that was not entertained by wife. Learned counsel also submits, that her admission reveals that she has not joined the marital house.

¶41

The respondent-husband appeared and

¶42

contested the case.

¶43

¶44

The learned Judge considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part as mentioned above. The same is challenged in this petition by the husband,

¶45

The learned counsel for revision respondentwife submits there has been a complete negligence and desertion on the part of the husband, as a newly married couple, she respondent-wife would not venture to leave the husband within days and spoil her marital life by claiming maintenance.

¶46

Learned counsel Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry

¶47

submits with regard to the income drawn by the revision petitioner that it is stipend at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and on putting question again, it was submitted that earlier when the petitioner was working as Residential Medical Doctor, he was getting the said amount of Rs.40,000/- and he was also

¶48

¶49

studying M.D. Now it is stated that he is practicing Doctor with a qualification of MBBS and M.D. and further to another question, learned counsel submits that he may get a minimum salary of Rs.50,000/-. However, the actual salary was not revealed by the learned counsel for revision petitioner.

¶50

It is also seen from the order that the wifepetitioner was compelled to watch porn sites and other marital inabilities was also mentioned in the order. Further he was also behaving in a wild manner after having failed to perform his material marital obligation. The marriage reception was arranged at Mangalore on 19.10.2013 but it was cancelled because of the husband revision-petitioner, and on 17.11.2013 wife (revision-petitioner) was taken to her parent’s house.

¶51

¶52

It is submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the revision petitioner. Further the revision respondent-wife is working. It was also contended that the marriage was performed by the petitioner’s mother after availing loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from her brother and other expenses of traveling to US. Mother of the husband also demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- lakh, however, it was arranged with great difficulty.

¶53

Learned counsel for Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, for revision petitioner would submit that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are conducted in the summary trial. The admitted fact in the proceedings are that the marriage is admitted. It is the revision respondent who has filed the divorce petition against the revision petitioner. He is stated to be a Doctor and was earning a stipend of Rs.40,000/-, now after completing M.D., he is practicing the

¶54

¶55

medical profession. The revision respondent is also stated to be a post graduate in Physiotherapy, working on contract basis earning Rs.15,000/-. The revision petitioner does not want to disclose exact monthly income and it was submitted that minimum income may around Rs.50,000 to 60,000/- and maximum is not known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶56

In the overall set of circumstances all is not well with the marriage and the parties are at logger heads. Within a short span of time, the matter has reached upto filing up of divorce petition. The allegations and counter allegations are not conducive. The petitioner is a private Doctor holding qualification of MBBS and M.D. and wife is a Physiotherapist. Considering the structure of economic and social status, I find that income of both the parties and the concept of negligence and suppression in the marital

¶57

¶58

life, I find that the grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the revision respondentwife is not exorbitant or excessive from the angle of revision petition. There are no grounds to set aside the order dated 12.7.2016.

¶59

Hence, Petition is liable to be rejected .

¶60

The arrears if any by the revision respondent shall be paid within 2 months from today either in two monthly installments or in lumpsum.

¶61

In this connection, the amount deposited before

¶62

this court is permitted to be withdrawn.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Akv/-

Mr. Sanal v. Mrs. Geoviya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sanal v. Mrs. Geoviya

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

C.M.Nanaiah Vs C N Shivanna

Sri Ramaiah Vs Sri Ramakrishnegowda

Sri. Arif. H Vs Smt. Rahmath Ashiya

Sri Honne Gowda S/O Dodda Puttegowda Vs Smt Chikkakempamma W/O Sri Kengegowda

Sri Manju Vs Smt Puttasrithi @ Srithi

Sri. N. Nagaraj Vs Smt. Lalithamma