The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Family Court order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held the monthly allowance was reasonable given the petitioner's profession and the wife's need.
The writ petition was dismissed; the interim maintenance order is upheld.
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.
WP No. 100629 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
WRIT PETITION NO. 100629 OF 2017 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.MALLAPPA S/O VISHWANATH ANGADI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O H.NO.18, 3RD CROSS, VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE AND SMT. PALLAVI S PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATES) AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANKIT R DESAI FOR SRI.MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
WP No. 100629 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:03.01.2017 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN I.A.NO.2 IN CRL.MISC.NO.410/2016 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is respondent before the Trial Court has challenged the order granting monthly interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd respondent.
WP No. 100629 of 2017
interim maintenance by way of I.A.No.2. It was allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month, respectively, to the respondents, which is being challenged in this appeal.
counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 has deserted the petitioner without any cause. After she went to her parents’ house for delivery of respondent No.2, she never returned. She has already lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his family members in Crime No.122/2015. She is also seeking divorce in M.C.No.90/2015 and those petitions are pending.
4.1. He would further submit that the petitioner is a junior advocate. He is not having income to provide interim maintenance at the rate of 7,000/- per month to the respondents. Since respondent No.1 is staying with her parents and there is no necessity to grant interim
WP No. 100629 of 2017 maintenance. Only to harass the petitioner and his family members, she is filing one after the other petitions and prays to set aside the impugned order. However, so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, the petitioner is having no grievance to grant maintenance to her and prays to set aside the impugned order insofar as granting of maintenance to respondent No.1.
WP No. 100629 of 2017
respondents is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that at present, respondents are not living with the petitioner. Though in the petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., respondents have claimed that the respondent No.1 is not having any income of her own, during her crossexamination before the Trial Court, she has admitted that she is working in a Co-operative Bank and earning Rs.16,000/- per month, based on which, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of this, respondent No.1 is not entitled for maintenance.
WP No. 100629 of 2017
respondents, it would be appropriate to continue interim order.
petitioner, he is not challenging the granting of interim maintenance in favour of respondent No.2. So far as maintenance granted to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the status of the parties and cost of living, it is reasonable. Though it has come in the evidence that respondent No.1 is working in a Co-operative Bank and earning Rs.16,000/- per month, as husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, he is having legal and moral obligation to maintain them. He is an advocate with more than ten years of practice and working with his father.
are living in a rented premises, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be directed to continue to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.1
WP No. 100629 of 2017
and Rs.2,000/to respondent No.2. Taking into
consideration the status of the parties as well as the cost of living, Rs.7,000/- is not on the higher side.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
YAN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the wife despite her income of Rs.16,000/-.
Whether the interim maintenance granted is reasonable considering the petitioner's status as an advocate and the cost of living.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Mallappa S/o Vishwanath Angadi
Trupti W/o Mallappa Angadi
Kumari. Tanvi D/o Mallappa Angadi
J.M. Khazi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
