Partly allowed

Smt Sakhi Bai v. Sri Prakash

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023RPFC/87/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitions by husband and wife/challenged interim maintenance order. High Court modified order awarding Rs.50,000/month lump sum to wife, directing 50% deduction from retirement benefits, and dismissed husband's petition.

What did the court decide?

Husband directed to pay Rs.50,000/month lump sum; 50% of retirement benefits deducted for arrears/future maintenance; husband's revision petition dismissed.

Smt Sakhi Bai Vs Sri Prakash — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 87 OF 2023 C/W REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 10 OF 2023

¶7

IN RPFC NO.87/2023:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAKHI BAI W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O SRINILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

¶10

NIDHI SHARAD D/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, R/O SRINILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

POORVIKA D/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, R/O SRINILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

¶13

PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SRI. VISHNU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. PRAKASH S/O ROOPLA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, S.T.J. COLLEGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.25/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶22

IN RPFC NO.10/2023:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI. PRAKASH S/O ROOPLA NAIK, AGED 55 YEARS, O/C ASST. PROFESSOR, S.T.J. COLLEGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SMT. SAKHI BAI W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE

¶29

NIDHI SHARAD D/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,

¶30

POORVIKA D/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶32

PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1 ALL ARE R/O SRINILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. VISHNU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE;

¶35

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶36

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.25/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶37

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petitioners in RPFC No.87/2023 have challenged the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru (henceforth referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Crl.Misc.No.25/2022 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 to meet the expenses of groceries, vegetable and other day-to-day expenses and directing him to meet the educational expenses, school fee of the children and to pay sum of Rs.1,000/- per

¶40

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶41

month to each of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 for their extracurricular expenses and the direction to respondent to meet the medical expenses of the petitioners and to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- each in the account opened in the names of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under Sukanya Samrudhi Scheme and to pay the electricity bills, cable bills etc.,

¶42

The petitioner in RPFC No.10/2023 has also

¶43

challenged the grant of maintenance in the aforesaid case.

¶44

The parties shall, wherever the context requires, be referred to as husband, wife and children.

¶45

The petitioner No.1 in RPFC No.87/2023 was given in marriage to the respondent on 10.05.2011 and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are their daughters. Due to various marital issues, the husband allegedly abandoned his marital obligations and was not meeting the day-to-day needs and necessities of the family. He thereafter, filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, which compelled the wife and children to seek for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. They claimed that the husband was employed as a Professor at S.T.J. College and

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶47

was drawing a salary of Rs.1,10,922/-. They also claimed that he owned 6 acres of ancestral land, which also used to generate income. The wife and children alleged that the husband had contracted an extramarital affair with another lady and had thus abandoned his marital obligations. The Trial Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month in terms of the order dated 19.02.2022.

¶48

The husband contested the petition and admitted the relationship but denied the allegations made against him about the extramarital relationship with a lady named, Roopa. He also denied that he neglected to maintain his wife and children. On the contrary, he contended that it was his wife, who was harassing him and despite he filing a petition for divorce, he continued to maintain the family and children and also was paying the school fee and educational expenses. He claimed that he was not drawing Rs.1,10,922/- as claimed by the wife and children. He claimed that he was taking care of the house and all expenses as he and his wife and children were living in the same house. He claimed that he was depositing Rs.2,000/- in the name of each of the daughters at

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶50

the post office and contended that he was not irresponsible as alleged.

¶51

Based on these contentions, the case was set down for trial. The wife was examined as PW.1 and she marked the salary slips of the husband as Ex.P1. The husband was examined as RW.1 and he marked the attendance certificates, the letter dated 01.12.2021 issued by the Kuvempu University, receipts for having paid the school fee, purchase of school bags and other items, bank challans for having deposited amounts in Sukanya Samrudhi Scheme, LIC premium receipts, as Exs.R1 to R42.

¶52

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It held that the husband was drawing a salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, was bound to maintain his wife and children, to his standard. It held that though the husband claimed that he was paying Rs.2,000/- per month in the names of his daughters, he was not doing so regularly and that he had not even obtained a policy of insurance in the name of his wife. It further held that the husband had undertaken to

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶54

pay the rent, school fee and other expenses concerning the education of the children. Therefore, it felt appropriate to direct the husband to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to meet the groceries and other expenses by the wife and also held that the husband shall continue to pay educational expenses of the children, pay the monthly rents, electricity bills and all other expenses. It further directed the husband to continue to deposit Rs.2,000/- per month in the names of the daughters and to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the daughters towards their extracurricular expenses. The Trial Court noticed that the husband was due to retire shortly and therefore, ordered that 75% of his retirement benefits shall be used for the maintenance of the wife and children and directed the drawing officer of the husband to take into account the directions given to the husband.

¶55

Being aggrieved by the said order, the wife and children have filed RPFC No.87/2023, while husband has filed RPFC No.10/2023.

¶56

The learned counsel for the wife and children contended that the order of the Trial Court is very difficult to

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶58

implement in as much as the wife and children cannot be expected to go to the husband for each and every thing and therefore, prayed that a value be added to all the provision

¶59

made in the impugned order and a lumpsum amount be awarded so that the wife can concentrate on the upbringing of the children. He contended that if the husband has no other responsibility, 2/3^rd of his income deserves to be ordered for the maintenance of the wife and children.

¶60

Per contra, the learned counsel for the husband contended that the Trial Court had directed the husband to lookafter the household expenses, educational expenses of the children and also deposit Rs.2,000/- every month in the name of the children and to pay the LIC premium etc., He contends that apart from these, it had directed the husband to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- each to children. He submits that this would go beyond his monthly income. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be revisited. Besides this, he contends that the Trial Court did not have any authority to direct the drawing officer of the husband to take note of the directions issued before settling the retirement benefits. He

¶61

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶62

therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be modified.

¶63

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶64

learned counsel for the wife and children as well as the learned counsel for the husband.

¶65

The fact that the husband had already filed a petition for dissolution of marriage would indicate that there is no love lost between them. Therefore, it is probable that the husband and wife are on a warpath, thereby compromising the wellbeing of the family and the upbringing of the children. In a matter of this nature, where the husband has a monthly income of more than Rs.50,000/- and since he has no other responsibility to meet, he is bound to pay adequate maintenance to meet the day-to-day expenses of the family, which is not limited only to the household expenses but also educational expenses as the wife has no means of livelihood but is endowed with the responsibility of bringing up the children. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the wife and children, instead of directing the husband to meet the expenses of the family, thereby forcing the wife to

¶66

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶67

plead before the husband for every small thing, it is appropriate to direct him to pay a lumpsum amount so that the wife takes care of the household expenses as well as the educational expenses of the children. Since the husband has claimed that he is also residing under the same roof, this would also benefit him to some extent.

¶68

In view of the above, this Court considers it appropriate to modify the impugned order by directing the husband to pay a monthly lumpsum for the maintenance of his wife and children. It is also imperative to direct the Drawing Officer of the husband at S.T.J. Women’s Degree College, Chikkamagaluru, to deduct 50% of the retirement benefits of the husband, which shall be paid to the wife and children towards their claims of maintenance.

¶69

In view of the aforesaid, this petition filed by the wife and children in RPFC No.87/2023 is allowed . The order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.25/2022 awarding maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to each of the daughters and directing the husband to deposit Rs.2,000/- to

¶70

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶71

each of the account of the daughters and also to pay the household expenses and educational expenses of the children is modified. The husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month to the wife, who shall take care of all the household

¶72

expenses/rent/electricity/water/cable/mobile phone expenses and the educational expenses of the children. The husband shall continue to deposit Rs.2,000/- every month in Sukanya Samrudhi Scheme in the name of the children until its term or maturity. He shall also pay the LIC premium of the policies until they mature. The drawing officer of the husband at S.T.J, Women’s Degree College, Chikkamagaluru, is directed to deduct 50% of the retirement benefits of the husband (Mr. Prakash) and credit the same to the account of the wife (Mrs. Sakhi Bai), which shall be appropriated towards the arrears of maintenance and the excess, if any, shall be appropriated towards the monthly maintenance, as ordered above.

¶73

The amount of Rs.50,000/- per month shall be paid by the husband from the date of filing of the petition (Crl.Misc.No.25/2022) before the Trial Court including the amount/expenses already paid by him. The maintenance of

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:41967 RPFC No. 87 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 10 of 2023

¶75

12 -

¶76

Rs.50,000/- granted shall be in force until the daughters get married. After marriage of the daughters, the husband would be at liberty to seek modification of this order.

¶77

In view of the order passed in RPFC No.87/2023,

¶78

the petition filed by the husband in RPFC No.10/2023 does not merit consideration and the same is dismissed .

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

PMR

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt Sakhi Bai v. Sri Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sakhi Bai v. Sri Prakash

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

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the Range Forest Officer

Sri.Krishnaprasad.v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnaprasad v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Lakshman Naik, Vs Smt. Divya

Smt Prabha Chandre Gowda Vs Sri S Prakash

Shri S Rajagopala Reddy Vs Smt Aswatha