Allowed

Mr Dhanraj M K v. Mrs Madhavi

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2023WP/4675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash and modify an interim maintenance order of Rs.9,000 granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that duplicate maintenance orders should be adjusted to avoid duplication, setting the effective entitlement at Rs.4,000 over and above the existing Section 125 maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Modified the writ petition directions to ensure the total maintenance does not exceed the entitlement, effectively reducing the Section 24 order to Rs.4,000 over the Section 125 grant.

Mr Dhanraj M K Vs Mrs Madhavi — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4675 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4675 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.DHANRAJ M.K., S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA B.M., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 2-9-982/2, REGO COMPOUND, NEAR 1^ST RAILWAY BRIDGE, MAMAMIKATTE, MANGALURU – 574 142.

¶9

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SHREE KRUPA, DARANDABAGILU, PANDIT HOUSE, PERMANNUR POST, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 142. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.R.SREENIVASA PATAVARDHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MRS.MADHAVI W/O MR.DHANRAJ, D/O CHENNAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHURCH COMPOUND, NEAR ST.JOSEPH'S ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VAMANJOOR,

¶13

¶14

WP No. 4675 of 2023

¶15

MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 142.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, IN M.C.280/2021 ON I.A NO.4 DT 21.01.2023 AT ANNX-Z.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.01.2023, passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in M.C.No.280/2021, partly allowing I.A.No.4, directing maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to be paid to the respondent.

¶21

Heard Sri K.R.Sreenivasa Patavardhan, learned counsel for petitioner.

¶22

Brief facts of the case that leads the petitioner to this Court, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶23

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent, his wife. The two get married on 08.05.2008 and from the wedlock, the couple have two children. It transpires that the relationship between the couple began to flounder and they

¶24

¶25

WP No. 4675 of 2023

¶26

started to live separately. The respondent filed an application invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance at the hands of the petitioner - husband. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 01.12.2016, granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the respondent - wife. The husband then files a petition seeking annulment of the marriage before the concerned Court on 22.04.2021, in which, the respondent - wife files an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance on 18.11.2021. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 21.01.2023, ordered / granted interim maintenance at Rs.9,000/- p.m. to be paid to the wife. It is this order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to work due to Dysthymia and post traumatic stress disorder and he is suffering from flashback syndrome of attacks, when he was working in Afghanistan and therefore, he is not able to work and pay the interim maintenance as ordered by the family Court. It is his submission that the wife is working as a clerk, she is able to

¶28

¶29

WP No. 4675 of 2023

¶30

live on her own and requires no maintenance from the hands of the petitioner – husband.

¶31

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

¶32

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was working in Afghanistan and comes back to India. It transpires that after the petitioner coming back to India, the relationship between the couple began to sore and the husband and the wife began to live separately and by then, the couple had two children. The respondent-wife invokes proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance, which the concerned Court partly allows and grants maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is diligently paying the said amount.

¶33

After five years of their separation, the petitioner files a matrimonial case before the concerned Court, seeking dissolution of marriage. In the said proceedings, the wife files an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This is also allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 4675 of 2023

¶36

Though the amount so granted by the concerned Court is not huge, the fact remains that it has been duplicated as there are two forums, before which the wife has sought maintenance. One application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and another under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, such duplication is erroneous. The Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA AND ANOTHER reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, has clearly held that, in the event there are multiple jurisdictions from which the wife seeks maintenance, the amount in duplication will have to be set off against each other. Therefore, the wife shall be entitled to total maintenance of Rs.9,000/- p.m. in either of the jurisdictions or the wife would be entitled to maintenance at Rs.4,000/- p.m., over and above, Rs.5,000/- p.m. that is already granted by the concerned Court in a petition filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

¶37

Except this modification, the other grounds urged by the petitioner are all unacceptable. If there is any amount of arrears that the petitioner has to pay the respondent - wife, the respondent - wife is at liberty to initiate such proceedings for

¶38

¶39

WP No. 4675 of 2023

¶40

payment of arrears either under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. or under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶41

The writ petition stands disposed, with the aforesaid

¶42

observations and directions.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NVJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Mr Dhanraj M K v. Mrs Madhavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Dhanraj M K v. Mrs Madhavi

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.Beeralingeshwara Temple Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S United Global Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shivu a Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Suba Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Tumkur Grain Merchant'S Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

M/S Jaichamundi Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Karnataka Bank Limited