Dismissed

Sri Harshavardhan M v. Smt R Shobha

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022RPFC/50/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the wife's education and previous employment did not absolve the husband of his duty to maintain her, especially considering the petitioner's better qualification and family status.

What did the court decide?

The Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the maintenance award of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 3,500/- per month to the daughter.

Sri Harshavardhan M Vs Smt R Shobha — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

RPFC No. 50 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.50 OF 2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI HARSHAVARDHAN M S/O LATE SRI MADIAH M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO 520, 1ST A CROSS, 32ND MAIN ROAD, BANAGIRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560085

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. N. RAMALINGA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT R SHOBHA W/O HARSHAVARDHAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO 106, 6TH CROSS, CHURCH STREET, NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560075.

¶15

KUMARI SHRESTASHRI D/O SRI HARSHAVARDHAN AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS R/AT NO 106, 6TH CROSS, CHURCH STREET, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560075

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SRI. MITHUN. G.A, ADVOCATE; R2IS MINOR , REPRESENTED BY R1)

¶18

¶19

RPFC No. 50 of 2016

¶20

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2016 PASSED IN CRL. MISC.NO.464/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.

¶21

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by order dated 14.01.2016 passed in

¶24

Crl.Misc.No.464/2009 by III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the present petition is filed by the respondent therein.

¶25

The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is their daughter. There is matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1, which has resulted in filing of petition for divorce by the petitioner herein, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, by respondent herein and also Crl.Misc.No.464/2009 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by respondents herein.

¶26

¶27

RPFC No. 50 of 2016

¶28

In the instant petition, we are concerned with the order passed in the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.464/2009 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. only.

¶29

Petitioner is a qualified Medical Transcriptionist and respondent No.1 is also educated and employed in Manipal Hospital. However, at the time of the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.464/2009, both have pleaded that they are unemployed.

¶30

Crl.Misc.No.464/2009 was preferred by respondent herein with a prayer to grant a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to them. The trial Court taking into consideration that both petitioner and respondent No.1 herein are educationally qualified and are capable of earning and however on the ground that the husband is required to maintain his wife and as well as the child, has granted a sum of Rs.5,000/per month to respondent No.1 herein and Rs.3,500/- per

¶31

¶32

RPFC No. 50 of 2016

¶33

month for respondent No.2 herein as maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶34

In the course of arguments, the petitioner fairly submits that he is willing to maintain respondent No.2 - daughter and he has no objection for paying the awarded sum of Rs.3,500/per month. However, he submits that respondent No.1 also being qualified, being in a position to maintain herself, the trial Court erred in awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month in her favour. In this context, Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:

¶35

Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

¶36

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

¶37

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

¶38

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain himself or herself,

¶39

¶40

RPFC No. 50 of 2016

¶41

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

¶42

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

¶43

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause(b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:

¶44

Thus, if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuse her to maintain, his wife who is unable to maintain herself, then the monthly maintenance can be granted to her.

¶45

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that petitioner has refused to maintain respondent No.1. The only question that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.1 is in a position to maintain herself or not ? Respondent No.1 admittedly is also educationally qualified and was employed in Manipal Hospital. It is submitted in the course of argument

¶46

¶47

RPFC No. 50 of 2016

¶48

that she is a B.COM graduate. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a Medical Transcriptionist and better qualified than respondent No.1 herein. Though, both of them pleaded that they have been unemployed, the trial Court based on the pleadings, has come to the conclusion that they have so pleaded only in the light of matter of matrimonial dispute pending amongst them and both are capable of earning. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner herein is better qualified than respondent No.1, the trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance. The evidence let in shows that given the family status of petitioner and respondents and the qualifications of petitioner and respondent No.1, the petitioner herein is better qualified and to keep up with the family status he is required to pay certain amount to respondent No.1. Only because respondent No.1 is also educationally qualified and was doing a job cannot be a ground for the petitioner to refuse to maintain respondent No.1. The trial Court while fixing maintenance amount has taken into consideration the potential earning capability of

¶49

¶50

RPFC No. 50 of 2016

¶51

respondent No.1 and has ordered for payment of only a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to her. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. For the aforementioned

¶52

reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed .

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

Sri Harshavardhan M v. Smt R Shobha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Harshavardhan M v. Smt R Shobha

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

President Vs Mahajabeen Naaz

Chandru (Chandrashekar S) Vs State by Kuvempu Nagara Police

Sri T Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Prolitus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Solize India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Sri G N Ramanujam Vs Sri Malavalli Chikkanna Charities

Smt. Chaithra U Vs Sri. Achyuth S.H.