Dismissed

Sri S Manjunath v. Smt Nethravathi

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2023RPFC/146/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court's maintenance order. Despite the petitioner's claim of indigence and alleged denial of paternity, the court found he possessed significant undisclosed assets earned through camouflaged sources via his mother. Consequently, the court upheld the order directing monthly maintenance payments. (Approx. 40 words)

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Family Court granting maintenance was upheld and the revision petition was dismissed.

Sri S Manjunath Vs Smt Nethravathi — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶4

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.146 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. S. MANJUNATH S/O LATE T.SONNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN.

¶7

CORRECT ADDRESS:

¶8

NO.1188, NARASIMHA PALYA, WARD NO.9, SRINIVASPURA TOWN, SRINIVASPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N.SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. NETHRAVATHI, D/O MUNIYAPPA, W/O SRI. S.MANJUNATH, AGED 33 YEARS

¶12

MASTER DRUPADA M (MINOR) S/O S.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER i.e. RESPONDENT NO.1

¶15

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ABBANI GRAMA, HUTHOORU HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶18

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.70/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOLAR, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶19

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 19.04.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision petition under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed assailing the correctness of the Order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar (henceforth referred to as 'the Family Court') in Crl. Misc. (FC) No.70/2017 by which the

¶22

¶23

petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein from the date of the application till her lifetime or till she remarries and a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 herein from the date of the application till the date of his attaining majority and a sum of Rs.50,000/every year towards educational expenses of the respondent No.2 herein and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein towards litigation expenses.

¶24

A petition in Crl. Misc. (FC) No.70/2017 was filed by the respondents claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to each of them and Rs.1,00,000/to the respondent No.2 per year towards his educational expenses. The respondent No.1 contended that she was given in marriage to the petitioner on 08.03.2015 at Kanipakam in Andhra Pradesh and that she and petitioner were residing at Srinivasapura for 1½ months and that respondent No.2 was born from the wedlock. The respondent No.1 claimed that petitioner and his mother

¶25

¶26

had demanded gold ornaments and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry which they upped later. The respondent No.1 claimed that her parents agreed to the demand of the petitioner and his mother and parted with gold ornaments and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- apart from silver articles. She claimed that her mother-in-law started interfering with the affairs of the family and again started demanding more money from her parents and her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner on two occasions. When they again demanded more money from her parents and when they refused to comply, petitioner and his mother started ill-treating respondent No.1 and abusing her and many a times physically assaulted her. Respondent No.1 alleged that she was not provided with basic necessities following which panchayats were held for settlement but the petitioner and his mother refused to heed to the advice of the panchayatdars. The respondent No.1 further alleged that her mother-in-law planned to kill

¶27

her several times and that she managed to escape every time. She further alleged that prior to her marriage,

¶28

¶29

petitioner had already married another lady named Smt.Rashmi, daughter of Sri S. Narayanaswamy of Ramanathapura village, Devanahalli Taluk, and after such marriage, he had an illicit relationship with a lady named Ms.Prameela and they both were involved in the murder of the said Smt.Rashmi on 08.02.2012. She alleged that the father of Smt.Rashmi had lodged a complaint against petitioner, his mother and Ms.Prameela before Srinivasapura Police Station who registered Crime No.35/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A charge sheet was also filed against them. The respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner and his mother without disclosing that they were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences, had performed her marriage with the petitioner. She further alleged that the petitioner, his mother and Ms.Prameela tried to kill her when she was pregnant. The respondent No.1 claimed that apprehending danger to her life, she joined her

¶30

¶31

parents and delivered a child on 21.02.2016. She claimed that though she went to the house of the petitioner on 03.04.2017, she was scorned and abused and was refused to be accepted into the house. She alleged that many relatives of the petitioner assaulted her and that she was admitted at S.N.R hospital, Kolar in respect of which Crime No.87/2017 was registered against the petitioner and his mother and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶32

The respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner had an obnoxious habit of watching blue films on his mobile phone and used to sexually harass her. She alleged that the petitioner was addicted to bad habits and came to the house every day intoxicated and used to beat her up demanding dowry from her parents. She alleged that the petitioner forced her to dissolve the marriage and when she refused, petitioner and his mother demanded that she give permission for petitioner to marry for the third time. She alleged that the petitioner had more than

¶33

¶34

50 acres of mango grove from which he was earning Rs.25,00,000/- per year and he had many houses at Srinivasapura Taluk from which he was earning rental income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 claimed that she was in need of a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month for her maintenance and her son / respondent No.2 was in need of Rs.40,000/- per month towards his food, clothing and other activities and also a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his educational expenses. She claimed that her husband had all the wherewithal to maintain her and her son but had neglected them. She, therefore, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to herself and a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month to her son apart from Rs.1,00,000/- per year towards his educational expenses.

¶35

The petitioner contested the said petition and claimed that he was not residing near railway station, Srinivasapura town as claimed by respondent No.1. He claimed that he did not own a house in Srinivasapura but

¶36

¶37

was employed by Sri Lakshman Reddy as a coolie at S.V.N. Traders of Srinivasapura and was earning a sum of Rs.300/- per day. He denied that he had married the respondent No.1 and that she had given birth to respondent No.2. He claimed that he was neither the husband of the respondent No.1 nor the father of respondent No.2 but they were utter strangers. He also denied all other allegations made against him in the petition for maintenance. He denied owning 20 houses in Srinivasapura and denied that he was earning rent of Rs.2,00,000/- per month from the said houses and he also denied owning 50 acres of mango grove in his village and that he was earning Rs.25,00,000/- every year from agriculture and mango crop from the land. He denied his liability to maintain respondent Nos.1 and 2. He contended that he and his mother were not in good terms and therefore, he executed a release deed dated 15.09.2015 in favour of his mother relinquishing all his right, title and interest in the properties by receiving a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and commenced business in vending

¶38

¶39

vegetables but incurred loss and thereafter was employed as a daily wager under Sri Lakshmana Reddy at S.V.N Traders.

¶40

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, the respondent No.1 filed I.A. No.3 under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') seeking appointment of District Surgeon, SNR Hospital, Kolar as Court Commissioner to conduct the DNA test of respondent No.2 and the petitioner to know whether the petitioner was related to respondent No.2 or not. This application was seriously opposed by the petitioner. The Family Court in terms of its Order dated 22.08.2019, allowed the application and appointed the District Surgeon of S.N.R. hospital, Kolar as the Commissioner to conduct a DNA examination as stated above. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.43756/2019 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on 20.02.2023. However, the petitioner failed to give his blood sample for conducting the DNA test.

¶41

¶42

The Family Court directed the parties to file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another [AIR 2021 SC 569]. Accordingly, both the petitioner and respondent No.1 filed their affidavits. While the respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioner was an agriculturist and a trader in mango and was earning Rs.25,00,000/- per year and that he possessed several sites and properties in Srinivaspura, the petitioner claimed that he had no income and no assets.

¶43

Based on these contentions, the petition was set down for trial. The respondent No.1 was examined as PW.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P1 to P59. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2. He also examined RW.2 who marked a copy of the licence issued by the Agricultural Produce and Marketing Committee (APMC), Srinivasapura, as Ex.R3.

¶44

¶45

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court held that the respondent No.1 herein had proved her relationship with the petitioner herein and also that the respondent No.2 herein was born from the wedlock. It noticed from the deposition of the petitioner that he was travelling to the Court in a Toyota innova car which he claimed belonged to someone else. The Family Court also noticed that the mother-in-law of respondent No.1 was an ex-Councillor of Srinivasapura town Panchayat. The Family Court noticed the conduct of the petitioner who deposed that he was not even aware about his siblings, about his maternal uncle and aunt. It also noticed that the petitioner had denied the wedding album which contained innumerable photographs of the wedding. It held that Exs.P36 to 44 were the RTC extracts of the land in Unkali village of Srinivasapura Taluk that stood in the name of Sri T. Sonnappa, the father of the petitioner and Exs.P45 to 55 disclosed that after the death of Sri T. Sonnappa, the revenue records were transferred in the name of Smt.Yashodamma, the mother of petitioner which

¶46

¶47

land was generating enough income. It also held that the petitioner had deliberately avoided to undergo the DNA test. It further held that the petitioner had enough earnings from the land as well as the properties shown in the affidavit of assets and liabilities furnished by the respondent No.1 herein and consequently, allowed the petition and directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein from the date of the application till her lifetime or till she remarries and a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 herein from the date of the application till the date of his attaining majority and a sum of Rs.50,000/every year towards educational expenses of the respondent No.2 herein and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein towards litigation expenses.

¶48

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the husband has filed this petition.

¶49

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶51

that the respondent No.1 did not prove her inability to maintain herself and her son - respondent No.2 and therefore, the Family Court was not justified in awarding maintenance. He further contended that the respondent No.1 did not disclose her assets and liabilities and that she had no income to maintain herself and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. He contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is unjustified and exorbitant. He claimed that the petitioner was not concerned with the land whose revenue records were marked as Exs.P36 to 42 but claimed that they belonged to third parties while the land which is the subject matter of RTC extracts at Exs.P43 to 55 belonged to petitioner's mother - Smt. Yashodamma. He further contended that the petitioner had executed a release deed (Ex.R1) releasing all his rights in the properties in favour of his mother. He further contended that the land owned by Smt. Yashodamma was her independent property and therefore no obligation can be cast on her or her property

¶52

¶53

to pay the maintenance. He contended that the mother of the petitioner is entitled to own, possess and enjoy the usufructs from the land. Learned counsel therefore contended that the respondent No.1 cannot claim maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that his mother has vast landed properties. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner was a daily wager at the vegetable market in Srinivasapura and was residing in a rented house. He contended that Ex.R3 was a licence issued in favour of Sri A.V. Lakshmana Reddy by the APMC, Srinivaspura and that he was employed with the said person as a daily wager. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in Shri Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi And Another [(1975) 2 SCC 386] and Binod Kumar Singh v. Sushma Devi [2023 (1) AJR 331] .

¶54

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner failed to give his

¶55

¶56

blood sample to conduct a DNA test as ordered by the Family Court and therefore, an adverse inference had to be drawn against him. He further contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was proved by the evidence of PW.2 who attended the marriage and the same was found in the photographs at Ex.P29(a). PW.3 was another witness who attended the marriage along with her husband. She identified a photograph in which the petitioner and respondent No.1 in the present case fell at her feet and took her blessing as Ex.P29(a). The learned counsel contended that the inpatient record at Ex.P3 issued by Manjunatha Health Care, Kolar shows that the respondent No.1 delivered the respondent No.2 through caesarean section and that the petitioner had consented to the same. The marriage photographs were produced in an album which is marked as Ex.P29 and the photographs contained therein showed the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Learned counsel relied upon the wedding invitation card and the birth certificate of the respondent

¶57

¶58

No.2 where the names of his parents are found. He submitted that these documentary evidence were just enough to establish the relationship between the parties and the Family Court after noticing the above had rightly held that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were related by marriage and that respondent No.2 was born to them. He submitted that the conversation of the petitioner with respondent No.1 over phone which was recorded in a compact disc was placed before the Family Court as Ex.P59 and the same disclosed the relationship as well as the conduct of the petitioner. He contended that the family of the petitioner possessed a large extent of land which was cultivated by the petitioner and that the family possessed large number of sites and other properties in Srinivasapura Town from which they were earning sufficient income and therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to be maintained according to their status. The learned counsel therefore contended that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and sufficient having regard to the financial status of the petitioner.

¶59

¶60

This Court tried to mediate a settlement

¶61

between the petitioner and respondent No.1. However, the petitioner was recalcitrant and claimed that he had no means to pay the maintenance ordered by the Family Court. He claimed that the properties pointed out by the respondent No.1 in the petition did not exist and that he was not aware of the same. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 placed on record a plaint in O.S. No.46/2023 filed by Smt. Sarojamma, the maternal aunt of the petitioner, before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Srinivasapur for partition and separate possession. This discloses that 26 items of agricultural lands were involved in the said suit. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also pointed out that a suit for partition was filed in O.S. No.10/2023 by the respondent No.2 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Kolar in respect of nearly 181 items of properties. Therefore, this Court in terms of the Order dated 23.03.2023, directed the District Legal Services Authority, Kolar to verify the

¶62

¶63

financial status of the petitioner and his family members and submit a report to this Court by the next date. The Member Secretary, District Legal services Authority submitted his report dated 03.04.2023 stating that the family of the petitioner possessed nearly 56 sites in Srinivasapura town alone and that the petitioner was residing in a house at Narasimha Palya at Srinivasapura. It is further stated in the report that Smt. Yashodamma possessed nearly 15 guntas of land in Srinivasapura Rural, 04 acres 33 guntas of land in Srinivaspura Amanikere village, 04 acres 37 guntas in H. Nalapalli village and 01 acre in Kothur village. He reported that the land in Unkali village of Srinivaspura measuring nearly 15 acres 19 guntas earlier stood in the name of the father of the petitioner and after his death, the revenue records stood transferred to the name of his mother, Smt. Yashodamma. He also reported that some extent of land was gifted to Smt. Manjulamma, the sister of the petitioner in respect of which several revenue proceedings and civil cases were pending. He reported that a trade licence was issued by

¶64

¶65

APMC yard, Srinivasapura in the name of TSR Traders and the licence holder was Smt. Yashodamma while the writer was Sri S. Manjunatha (petitioner herein). It was also reported that the licence issued by APMC, Srinivasapura in the name of S.V.N Traders was held by Sri A.V. Lakshmana Reddy (RW.2) while the writer was Sri S. Manjunath (petitioner herein). The District Legal Services Authority also secured the assessment extracts of the sites mentioned above as well as the revenue records of the lands mentioned above. It has also placed on record the application filed for obtaining the licence by Smt.Yashodamma which shows that TSR Traders was licenced to do business in vegetables and mango. The petitioner and his mother who were present in the Court did not dispute the fact that they possessed a licence to run a business in APMC, Srinivasapura. This Court noticed that the mother was aged nearly 70 years and therefore, it was improbable that she was conducting business and the fact that the petitioner's name was found as the writer in respect of TSR Traders and S.V.N traders, it deserves to be

¶66

¶67

held that the petitioner was indeed conducting business and was not a daily wager as claimed by him. A perusal of the record of the Family Court more particularly the evidence of the petitioner discloses that he made every attempt to disown his wife and child and also disown his liability to maintain her and has stooped to the level of not even knowing the details of his siblings, maternal and paternal relatives. It is also found that the petitioner possessed a driving licence to drive a four wheeler and he deposed that he used to visit the Family Court in a four wheeler to attend the hearings in the Family Court but claimed that he was not the owner of the said vehicle. He did admit that in the driving licence, his residential address was shown as Narasimha palya of Srinivasapura. He also admitted that in the ration card, his residential address was shown as Narasimha Palya. He also admitted that their family possessed a ration card which was given to Above Poverty Line people. The aforesaid evidence, the conduct of the petitioner goes to show that he and respondent No.1 are estranged and that they are living

¶68

¶69

separately. There is no material to establish that respondent No.1 had any source of income and that she was able to maintain herself. On the contrary, evidence galore in the case which indicates that the petitioner is affluent and has undisclosed amount of earnings through sources that are camouflaged in the name of his mother. It also discloses that the father of the petitioner owned nearly 48 sites and 15 acres 19 guntas of land in Unkali village. The petitioner claimed that he was the only child and therefore, it can reasonably be held that the petitioner is earning income of not less than Rs.25,00,000/- per annum as stated by respondent No.1. Having regard to the standard of living of the petitioner and respondent No.1 and also having regard to the nature of expenses and the cost of living as well as the educational needs and necessities of the respondent No.2, the impugned Order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein from

¶70

the date of the application till her lifetime or till she remarries and a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the

¶71

¶72

respondent No.2 herein from the date of the application till the date of his attaining majority cannot be termed to be excessive and likewise, the educational expenses of Rs.50,000/- payable to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner every year ordered by the Family Court is also not excessive. Similarly, litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/payable to respondents herein ordered by the Family Court is also not excessive. Hence, this petition lacks merit and

¶73

is dismissed.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

sma

Sri S Manjunath v. Smt Nethravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Manjunath v. Smt Nethravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Narasimha Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Suresh K S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Suresh K S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. S. Rohit @ Vante Vs Additional Commissioner of Police (East)

Kum. Lakshmi Vs Sri. Raju. C. a.

Sri G Guruprasad Vs the State by