Two cross appeals regarding family maintenance were heard. The court held that the trial court awarded insufficient maintenance. It enhanced the wife's monthly maintenance from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,000, allowing the first appeal and dismissing the second filed by the husband.
Monthly maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife was enhanced to Rs. 3,000 per month.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A.NO.6599/2013 (FC) C/W
M.F.A.NO.74/2013 (FC)
IN M.F.A.NO.6599/2013:
BETWEEN:
SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O MAHESHWARRIAH H.M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BASAPUR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 201. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.V. REVANASIDDAIAH, ADV., - ABSENT)
AND:
MAHESHWARRIAH H.M S/O MRUTHYUNJAYADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ATTENDER, S.J.M.DENTAL COLLEGE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SPPORTHY HEGDE, ADV.)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED31.10.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.18/2011 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANGERE, PARTLY DECREEING THE PETITION FILED U/O 7, RULE 1 OF CPC.
2
IN M.F.A.NO.74/2013:
BETWEEN:
MAHESWARAIAH H.M S/O MURTHYNJAYADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ATTENDER, SJM DENTAL COLLEGE CHITRADURGA - 575 501. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
GIRIJAMMA W/O MAHESHWARAIAH H.M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O BASAPURA VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.V. REVANASIDDAIAH, ADV., - ABSENT)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 19 OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.18/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED U/O 7 RULE 1 OF CPC, FOR MAINTENANCE AND INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
These two appeals filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arise out of the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2012 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Davanagere, in O.S.No.18/2011, and therefore, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3
4
appearance in the said suit and filed his written statement denying the allegations made against him and he also contended that by birth he was a disabled person, and therefore, the appellant-wife had neglected him and she had left his company and voluntarily started residing in her parents house. He also has denied that he has got an income of Rs.15,000/- per month from his employment and also contended that he had already sold the property which was allotted to his share in the family partition. He also stated that the appellant-wife wanted him to stay along with her in her parents house and it is under these circumstances, she had left his company and started residing in her parents house.
and another witness as DW-2 and got marked two documents as Exs.D-1 & D-2. The Trial Court vide the
5
impugned judgment and decree has partly decreed the suit and had awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/per month to the appellant-wife and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-wife has filed M.F.A.No.6599/2013, while the respondent-husband has filed M.F.A.No.74/2013.
6
has taken the income of the respondent at Rs.12,000/per month. The respondent who has denied that his income was Rs.15,000/- per month, has not produced his salary certificate before the Family Court.
7
respondent has contended that the wife has also got other sources of income, he has not produced any material before this Court or before the Trial Court to substantiate this contention of his. Therefore, in our considered view, the Trial Court was not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the appellant-wife towards her monthly maintenance and even otherwise, since ten years time has elapsed after the judgment and decree impugned has been passed, the appellant-wife is entitled for enhancement in payment of monthly maintenance. The Court is also required to take into consideration that the cost of life and other expenses would have increased, and therefore, in our considered view, if the monthly maintenance amount awarded to the appellant-wife is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order:
8
enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month. M.F.A.No.74/2013 is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE Sd/JUDGE
KK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the monthly maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife should be enhanced in the light of increased cost of living and elapsed time.
Whether the respondent-Husband is justified in denying his income and selling partitioned properties to avoid maintenance obligations.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Girijamma W/o Maheswariah H.M
Maheswariah H.M
Maheshwariah H.M
Girijamma W/o Maheshwarah
Allok Aradhe
S. Vishwavjit Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
