High Court Bench modified a Family Court order awarding Rs.40,000/- per month maintenance, reducing it to Rs.20,000/- per month considering the husband's income and the wife's salary as a teacher.
Maintenance reduced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month; order of Family Court set aside for modification.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
R.P.F.C. No.206/2016
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHIT MISHRA S/O. PADMAKAR MISHRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.407/1, DIAMOND MANSION 5TH FLOOR, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG WORLI, MUMBAI – 400 018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE RESPONDENT NO.1
2
BOTH R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT CCC, HC NAGAR POST HQTC (U) HEBBAL BENGALURU – 560 006.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLANNA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS MINOR REPRSENTED BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.392/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
On the previous date of hearing, after completion of arguments by learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent sought time and it was granted.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, again learned counsel for respondent seeks time. There are no grounds to grant adjournment, hence the said prayer is rejected and considering the age and stage of the case this Court
3
proceeded to dispose off the matter after perusing the records and submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner.
The petitioner is husband and respondent No.1 is wife and respondent No.2 is their son.
The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was held and solemnized on
4
17.02.20009 at Uttar Bhartiy Sangh Hall, Near Government Colony, Behind Kherwadi Police Station, Bandra (East) Mumbai and it was arranged marriage. From the wedlock, they have got a male child born on 21.8.2010 named as Rudransh.
Respondent is an Engineering graduate and he is working as Design Engineer at Aker Power Gas Pvt. Ltd., at Mumbai and drawing monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. 1st petitioner is a house wife. Respondent is a greedy person and never shown love and affection towards his wife after marriage and used to demand her to bring huge amount from her parents to buy a flat at Mumbai. He used to assault her without any just reason demanding money and flat and forcefully thrown her out of the matrimonial house. She hardly stayed for six months in the matrimonial house and now she is staying with her parents from July 2009 onwards. He used to visit her in her parents house and sent messages over phone demanding a flat and money repeatedly.
He did not take her to matrimonial house to lead marital life nor he is providing basic needs and maintaining both these
5
petitioners though he is drawing handful of salary. She tolerated all the acts of the respondent hoping that he will mend his ways, but went in vain. 1st petitioner has given complaint against him on 3.8.2011 before the police of Pune where she was residing and subsequently another complaint was given on 13.10.2012 before the Station House officer of Jaisalmer Police Station explaining harassment of the respondent. Many panchayaths were held in this regard before the elders and relatives of both sides. But, no fruitful result yielded. The father of the 1st petitioner is working in Air Force and earlier he was working at Pune and then at Jaisalmer and now he has been transferred to Bangalore. Her father is looking after her welfare and also child by providing minimum basic needs.
Respondent is getting monthly salary over Rs.1,00,000/and not providing and maintaining the petitioners. They cannot continue to stay all along with her father and she intended to take separate shelter for them by taking rented premises. To maintain themselves and to provide a good health and education to the 2nd petitioner they need sum of Rs.40,000/- as monthly
6
maintenance. She has given police complaint against respondent at Sadashiva Nagar Police Station, Bangalore and the case has been Registered in Cr.No.40/2014 under Section 498 A and 506 of IPC. There is no safety to the petitioners to go and join and to live with the respondent since he has made serious threat to ruin the life of the 2nd petitioner.
She has filed similar petition against the respondent in Crl.Misc.478/2014 before this Hon’ble court and same has been dismissed in terms of memorandum of settlement. Respondent is not willing and co-operating to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in order to file necessary petition seeking to quash the case registered against him in Cr.No.40/2014. Hence, this petition.
7
8
9
It is further stated in the Domestic Violence case No.66/2015, a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was ordered on 05.06.2018 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
10
Rs.20,000/- per month would have been just and proper. The present amount of Rs.40,000/or Rs.40,000Rs.10,000=Rs.30,000/- is definitely heavy and excessive. The employment and the salary of the wife respondent No.1 at Rs.73,605/- as a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya also has to be considered. The revision petition deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed in part.
Sd/JUDGE
BVK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court to the wife and minor son is excessive in view of the husband's income and the wife's employment.
Whether the maintenance award needs to be modified to a lower amount to be just and proper.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohit Mishra
Reena Mishra
Rudranesh Mishra
N.K. Sudhindrarao
B.V.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
