Dismissed

Sureshbabu C v. Vinitha

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023WP/36905/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the husband's writ petition challenging the Family Court's order directing him to pay interim maintenance, rent, and education expenses to his wife and son during pending divorce proceedings, upholding the lower court's discretion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the interim maintenance order dated 24.07.2018 made by the Family Court was confirmed.

Sureshbabu C Vs Vinitha — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 36905/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.36905 OF 2018 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SURESHBABU C., S/O MR C. GOVINDAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.2, GOVINDAM 4TH CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT DASARAHALLI, HEBBAL BENGALURU – 560 024. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. MISHA THOMAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

VINITHA W/O SURESHBABU C., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT AT NO.21 14TH “A” CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA BANGALORE-560 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.TRIPURAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. SHEELA ANISH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 24.07.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN I.A.NO.3 IN M.C.NO.2477/15.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

WP No. 36905/2018

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner who is the husband is assailing the order dated 24.07.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.2477/2015 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru wherein, the Family Court has directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- each per month to the respondent-wife and the minor son from the date of filing of the application i.e. 24.11.2016 till disposal of the main petition and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards rent and advance amount of rented house to the respondent-wife. In addition, the Family Court also directed the petitioner to incur the education expenses of his son from the academic year 2015-2016 onwards till completion of his education, subject to production of original bills by the respondent-wife herein.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 36905/2018

¶21

Brief facts of the case are, the wife filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'Act') seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Objections were filed by the husband to the main petition. In the meanwhile, during the pendency, it is also stated that the husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.3266/2016 before the Family Court, Bengaluru. This being so, I.A.No.3 under Section 24 of the Act came to be filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance for herself and her minor son Mukul Anandh to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for the educational expenses for the academic years 2015-16 and 2016-17 and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

¶22

The wife contended that the husband has subjected her to cruelty since the date of marriage and has thrown her out from the matrimonial home without taking care of her and her minor son and she being not a well qualified lady, though prior to marriage she was working as a Secretary in a Private firm and later, her husband went to

¶23

¶24

WP No. 36905/2018

¶25

Dubai for job and she was forced her to give up the job and to look after the child. Due to harassment, she was forced to reside in her parental house and unable to maintain herself and her child and sought for maintenance on the ground of desertion.

¶26

The husband filed objections to I.A.No.3 contending that the application itself is not maintainable as wife is gainfully employed and moreover since wife herself has refused to join the company of the husband and without there being reasonable cause, she is not entitled for maintenance and sought to dismiss the application.

¶27

The Trial Court considering the material on record

¶28

and the contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioner is earning substantially and the wife is unable to maintain herself has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/each to the wife and the son and Rs.10,000/- towards rent subject to the wife producing receipts to that effect. This is the interim maintenance which has been accorded by the Family Court and the matter is pending consideration

¶29

¶30

WP No. 36905/2018

¶31

in MC No.2477/2015. The Family Court taking into consideration that yet evidence has to be lead by the parties in so far as allegations having been made against each other and pending final adjudication, interim maintenance was awarded to the wife and her son.

¶32

It is also relevant to note that it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent-wife that not even a single amount of maintenance as ordered by the Family Court has been paid. Taking into consideration that not even a single amount has been paid by the petitioner and the petitioner has filed this petition, the matter is pending from 2018 and the petitioner being able-bodied person, the petition would not be maintainable before this Court as the statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The matter is pending since 2018 before this Court, no materials are forthcoming to evidence the payment of maintenance amount and the petitioner-husband had benefit of interim order by only depositing Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The petitioner-husband being an able-bodied

¶33

¶34

WP No. 36905/2018

¶35

person cannot contend that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints. The Hon’ble Apex Court

¶36

in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 , wherein at paragraph No.2 held as under:

¶37

“2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the

¶38

¶39

WP No. 36905/2018

¶40

field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.”

¶41

With these observations, the impugned order does

¶42

not call for any interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The Writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

ii) The impugned order dated 24.07.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.2477/2015 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sureshbabu C v. Vinitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshbabu C v. Vinitha

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

Sri M N Nagaraja Vs Smt J B Jayanthi

Sri. H. R. Srinivas Vs Smt. Shruthi. M. K.

Miss Sarika Nataraj T Vs the Regional Manager

M/S. Nandana Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

A. Gnanendra Vs Sri Dharmaraya Swamy Temple

Mrs. Shuaiba Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka