Dismissed

K v. Paramesha v Smt Bharathi K L

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022WP/12391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a husband challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month granted to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held the award was fair and reasonable given the evidence. Application confirmed without interference.

What did the court decide?

Production of cash memorandum and evidence regarding income by the petitioner was not required for the premise of order, as the Family Court order is confirmed.

K v Paramesha Vs Smt Bharathi K L — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12391/2018 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.V. PARAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O VEERABHADRASHETTY, R/AT SHIRANGALA GATE AND POST, SOMAVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 577 101. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. BHRATHI K.L., W/O K.V. PARMESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT SHIRANGALA GATE AND POST, SOMAVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶11

PRESENTLY R/AT KABBINAHALLI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEX-A THAT IS THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2017 PASSED ON I.A.1/16 IN CRL. MISC. NO.43/2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE, 1^ST ADDL. FAMILY COURT, HASSAN.

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner who is the husband of the respondent has filed the present petition assailing the order dated 10/04/2017 in Crl. Misc.No.43/2016, on the file of I Addl. Family Court, Hassan, whereby, I.A.No.I filed by the wife under Section 125(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month has been allowed in part and directed the petitioner/husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife.

¶18

The parties herein are referred to as the husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶19

The wife filed the claim petition under Section 125(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month on the ground that the husband has neglected to maintain her and that the husband has illicit relationship with some other lady and as

¶20

¶21

such, has refused to maintain her and hence, filed the claim petition seeking maintenance.

¶22

Pursuant to the notice in the criminal

¶23

miscellaneous petition, objections were filed by the husband denying the averments made in the criminal miscellaneous petition. During the pendency of the criminal miscellaneous petition I.A.No.1 was filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month against the husband specifically contending that the husband has harassed her mentally and physically and has not led a happy married life with the wife. It is also contended that the husband has entered into some illicit relationship and has deprived the wife of the matrimonial obligations and also contended that she is in need of maintenance and that the husband is an LIC Agent and earning around Rs.50,000/- and getting income from the land and house property also.

¶24

I.A.No.1 was objected by the husband denying

¶25

the averments made in the petition stating that he has

¶26

¶27

never failed to take care of the wife. It is also stated that there is no fixed income for him and stated that the wife has some physical problem in performing the matrimonial relationship and that she could not give birth to child during the wedlock and thus sought to dismiss the petition filed by the wife.

¶28

The Family Court by its order dated 10/04/2017 allowed the application filed under Section 125(2) of the Cr.P.C. in part and directed respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of the order till the date of disposal of the case. It is this order which is assailed by the husband in this petition.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and learned counsel for the respondent/wife.

¶30

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband

¶31

would contend that the granting of Rs.4,000/- is much on

¶32

¶33

the higher side as the petitioner though working as LIC agent, he is not having sufficient source of income to maintain his family and his old age parents and hence, the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court is on the higher side and thus sought for reduction of the same. It is the wife who has not taken care of the husband and she is the one who left the house and deserted the husband and thus the wife is not entitled for any relief sought for, in the application.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife justified the order passed by the Family Court on the ground that the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court at Rs.4,000/- per month is just and proper and does not call for any interference as the petitioner has sought for Rs.10,000/- and the Family Court has granted Rs.4,000/- per month which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is in fact meager.

¶35

¶36

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

¶37

and perused the material on record, including the memo filed by learned counsel for the respondent to show that the husband is earning sufficiently and endorsement dated 30/10/2018 issued by the LIC under the RTI Act, wherein

¶38

it is shown that the petitioner herein is drawing Rs.15,58,546/- from 01/04/2010 to 31/08/2010 and he is drawing annual commission of Rs.1,94,832/-. Though these documents are not produced before trial court, it is only taken note. It is not in dispute that the husband is working as an LIC agent and he is earning sufficiently and it is also not the case of the husband that he is not an able bodied person, thus he is under an obligation to his wife as required under law. It is also not in dispute that a legally wedded wife has to be maintained and in this case due to the circumstances enunciated in the petition she is living separately and hence, she requires maintenance to maintain her life, and though wife claimed interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in light of the fact that evidence needs to be adduced to show actual income of

¶39

¶40

husband, the family court awarded a sum of Rs.4000/- per month during the pendency of the petition Crl.Misc.No.43/2016, which according to this Court is fair for the present, pending disposal of Criminal Miscellaneous and does not call for any interference. In view of the circumstances, the Family Court was justified in looking into the facts and awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶43

(ii) The order dated 10/04/2017 on I.A No.1 passed in Crl.Misc.No.43/2016 on the file of I Addl. Family Court, Hassan, is hereby confirmed.

¶44

No order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

K v. Paramesha v Smt Bharathi K L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K v. Paramesha v Smt Bharathi K L

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

Kum Vandana Vs Sri G R Ramesh

Sri. Mohammed Anjar Wajid Vs the Authorized Officer Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.

Mrs Mumthaj S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr K v Srinivasa Reddy Vs the Authorized Officer

Smt. Shashi Vs Gunasheela Ivf Centre

B Kotreshappa Vs the Under Secretary to Government