Partly allowed

Mr. Prashanth v. Mrs. Prathiba Pillai

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2021RPFC/26/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition partly, reducing the trial court's award of Rs.20,000 monthly maintenance to Rs.16,000. The court acknowledged the interim maintenance of Rs.4,000 already awarded under the Domestic Violence Act.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs.20,000/month reduced to Rs.16,000/month; petitioner to continue paying Rs.4,000/month under DV Act.

Mr. Prashanth Vs Mrs. Prathiba Pillai — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

R.P.F.C. NO.26 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. PRASHANTH S/O. MR. K. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: BHANUPRABHA, NEAR ADIMAYE TEMPLE, THANDOLIGE, JEPPINA MOGARU, MANGALORE - 575004 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MRS. PRATHIBA PILLAI W/O. PRASHANTH, D/. MR. SHASHIDHAR PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: DOOR NO.1-70/29, SHASHI NIVAS, URUNDADI GUDDE, PANJIMOGARU, MANGALORE - 575 013.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.CASE NO.77/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K.MANGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125(1) OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in Crl.Misc.No.77/2019, by which maintenance of a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month was awarded.

¶20

The case in Crl.Misc.No.77/2019 was filed under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. It was claimed in the petition that the respondent had studied upto 12^th Standard and had pursued further studies in Aviation and was working as ground staff in Air India. It is claimed that after her marriage, the petitioner insisted her to quit the job which she did. It is claimed that the petitioner went to Sharjah along with the respondent in 2015 and started ill-treating her. On account of the continuous ill-treatment, the respondent lost her health and she was compelled to work at Dubai notwithstanding the fact that she was in the last week of her pregnancy. She claimed that she called her

¶21

¶22

mother for assistance during delivery and after delivering the child, she came to India as she was neglected. She claimed that the petitioner who had taken away all the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage, failed to return them. She claimed that she filed Crl.MC.No.38/2018 under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 where the Court had granted interim maintenance. had come down to India for assistance. She claimed that as counterblast, the petitioner filed MC.No.195/2018 for restitution of conjugal rights. She claimed that her daughter was diagnosed as suffering from caner and later died on 31.05.2019. She alleged that though the death of the child was informed to the petitioner, he did not respond and did not meet the expenses of treatment. She claimed that the petitioner was employed at Sharjah and earning Rs.1,26,000/- per month and had built a house and possessed many properties at his native place. Hence she sought maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month.

¶23

Notice of this petition was served on the elder brother of the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to appear

¶24

¶25

before the Court and therefore, he was placed exparte. The respondent was examined as P.W.1 before the Trial Court and she marked Ex.P.1 to 14.

¶26

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the respondent had reasonable cause to stay away from the petitioner. It also noticed the claim of the respondent that the petitioner was employed in Sharjah and was earning a salary of more than a sum of Rs.1,26,000/-. It also noticed the claim that the petitioner had build a house and possessed various properties in his native place. The Trial Court therefore, passed an order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of the petition.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition is filed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice of the petition was not served on the petitioner, though the respondent know the address of the petitioner at Sharjah. The respondent had deliberately suppressed the interim maintenance of

¶29

¶30

Rs.4,000/- per month awarded in Crl.MC.No.38/2018 that was filed by the respondent under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He also submitted that the respondent had withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without reasonable cause and that she was cruel to him. He submitted that the attempts at rapprochement by a petition for conjugal rights, proved futile. He claimed that the respondent had failed to bring it to the notice of the Trial Court about the proceedings and the maintenance awarded in Crl.MC.No.38/2018.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is employed in Sharjah, while the respondent is residing in India. Since, the parties are residing away from each other due to incompatibility, the respondent is entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is beneficially employed in Sharjah. Though he has filed an affidavit indicating his monthly income of Rs.70,000/-, yet he has not produced any material in that regard.

¶32

¶33

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that his income is Rs.70,000/- per month cannot be accepted.

¶34

Having regard to the fact that the respondent is now not employed and taking into the account, the standard of life led by the petitioner and the respondent, it is appropriate that the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is reduced from a sum of Rs.20,000/- to a sum of Rs.16,000/-. Since a sum of Rs.4,000/- is already awarded in Crl.MC.No.38/2018.

¶35

In that view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed in part. The maintenance of a sum of Rs.20,000/- payable to the respondent as ordered by the Trial Court is reduced to a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month payable from the date of the petition during life time of respondent or till she remarries, whichever is earlier. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as ordered in Crl.MC.No.38/2018.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

GJM

Mr. Prashanth v. Mrs. Prathiba Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prashanth v. Mrs. Prathiba Pillai

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

M Mahadevappa Vs Smt. B S Rajeshwari

Late Smt Revamma Vs Sri Hanumantharayappa

Sri Srinivasahan Vs the National Director

K Satish Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Revenue)

Smt Kalamma Vs Smt Premamma @ Premakka

Sri. N. Ramesh Vs Sri. G. G. Raveesha