The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Family Court order fixing monthly maintenance for a wife and two children. The Court held that the maintenance amount was reasonable relative to the petitioner's increased salary.
Petitioner directed to pay maintenance as awarded by the Family Court; Legal Services Authority to pay remuneration to Amicus Curiae.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
RPFC NO.59 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
H.Krishnaiah, S/o Channappa, Aged about 36 years, R/at S.Thimmapura Village RS, Konapuram Mandalam, Kadapa District, Andrapradesh-516464. Working as Nayak in Army Badge No.15320870K-N/K
…Petitioner
(By Sri D.Nagaraja Reddy, Amicus Curiae)
AND:
1 and 2 respondents are minors, Represented by their mother And natural guardian Smt. Bhagyalakshmi
:: 2 ::
No.18, Narasipura, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru-560097.
…Respondents
(By Sri S.Sharath Gowda, Advocate for R3; R1 and R2 are minors represented by R3)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,1984 against the order dated 06.10.2015 passed in C.Misc.No.178/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, allowing the petition filed under Section 125(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.P.C.
This RPFC coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri. D. Nagaraja Reddy, Amicus Curiae
for the petitioner and Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, counsel for respondents 1 to 3.
respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 are the children of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The respondents initiated action under section 125
:: 3 ::
Cr.P.C. against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The petitioner is working as Nayak in the Indian Army. The Family Court where the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated, after holding an enquiry came to conclusion that the respondents had been neglected by the petitioner and therefore allowed the petition by directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the children
and Rs.5,000/- to the wife. To come to this conclusion, the Family Court took into consideration the salary of the petitioner being Rs.26,000/- p.m. at that time. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court, the petitioner is before this court in this revision petition.
Family Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was getting net salary of Rs.21,000/- p.m. and thus if he was asked to pay
:: 4 ::
Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards maintenance of wife and children, it would exceed 75% of his net salary and in this view, the petitioner finds it difficult to pay maintenance to that extent. Therefore there is a case for interference.
:: 5 ::
becomes quite clear that the Family Court came to conclusion to award maintenance to the respondent because the petitioner had neglected to take care of them. At the time when the impugned order was passed, the salary of the petitioner was taken as Rs.26,000/- p.m. and in this view the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid to the children and Rs.5,000/to the wife. The petitioner is said to be still in the service of Indian Army and the order of this court dated 20.07.2016 shows that the petitioner was getting salary of Rs.46,987/p.m. The respondents have not claimed enhancement of maintenance. If the enhancement of salary of the petitioner is considered, the maintenance provided by the Family Court does not appear to be on the higher side. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence the petition is dismissed.
:: 6 ::
directed to pay remuneration of Rs.5,000/- to the
amicus curiae for his services.
Sd/JUDGE
sd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition against the Family Court's maintenance order should be allowed given the petitioner's increased salary?
If there are grounds for interference with the maintenance order in light of the petitioner's financial changes?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
H.Krishnaiah
Master Akshay Kumar
Master Arun kumar
Smt. Bhagyalakshmi
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
