Partly allowed

Sri G C Thipperudrappa v. Smt Lakshmidevi

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/56107/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part, quashing an interim maintenance order. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration with directives to file affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities, following the Rajnesh v. Neha ratio.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration; parties directed to file asset/liability disclosures within four weeks.

Sri G C Thipperudrappa Vs Smt Lakshmidevi — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 56107 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 56107 OF 2018 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI G.C. THIPPERUDRAPPA, S/O M. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/OF NETRANAHALLI VILLAGE, KONASAGARA POST, MOLAKALMURU TALUK - 567 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. N.G.DEVISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y.H. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O KATTEKAPLE GOWRAMMA, W/O G.C.THIPPERUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/OF HANAGAL VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK - 567 101, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

((BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE IN M.C.NO.20 OF 2017 DTD 18.09.2018 AND DISMISS THE ABOVE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 56107 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenging order dated 18.09.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Challakere, in M.C.No.20/2017 vide Annexure-G, directing respondent to pay interim maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife, this petition is filed.

¶21

Ms. Devishree N.G., learned advocate for Sri. Y.H. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned order passed by Family Court was untenable and illegal. It was submitted that petitioner was working as teacher in Morarji Desai Residential School and his net salary after deduction was Rs.13,000/- only. Under such circumstances, direction issued by Family Court to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance would be arbitrary.

¶22

It was further submitted that respondent had also filed Crl.Mis.no.250/2017 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance, therefore there was duplication of claims. On said grounds learned counsel sought for quashing impugned order.

¶23

On other hand, Sri. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for respondent submitted that since petitioner was working as

¶24

¶25

WP No. 56107 of 2018

¶26

teacher in Government School, direction to pay Rs.10,000/- per month was reasonable considering cost of living. Hence sought for dismissal of petition.

¶27

Heard learned counsel.

¶28

On perusal of impugned order, it is seen that learned Civil Judge, after coming to prima facie conclusion that respondent was justified in living separately and taking into account petitioner's status as teacher in Morarji Desai Residential School, proceeded to pass order directing payment of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

¶29

It is seen that petitioner's claim as well as respondents opposition was based mainly on assertions in affidavit with scant material to enable proper determination and based upon guesswork. Under similar circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha ,¹ , observed as follows:

¶30

"63. At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings, where some amount of guesswork or rough estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie assessment of the amount to be awarded. It is often seen that both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the

¶31

1 (2021) 2 SCC 324

¶32

¶33

WP No. 56107 of 2018

¶34

correct details, and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income. It has therefore become necessary to lay down a procedure to streamline the proceedings, since a dependent wife, who has no other source of income, has to take recourse to borrowings from her parents/relatives during the interregnum to sustain herself and the minor children, till she begins receiving interim maintenance."

¶35

It is seen that in instant case, learned Civil Judge

¶36

ordered interim maintenance on 18.09.2018. Respondenthusband therein filed this writ petition and obtained interim order. Thereafter, as per both parties, there are virtually no further proceedings and final maintenance amount is yet to be determined. Therefore, instant case would fall into folds of ratio

¶37

in Rajnesh Vs. Neha 's case ( supra) , wherein following directions were issued for determining maintenance:

¶38

"127. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B – I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India :

¶39

(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family

¶40

¶41

WP No. 56107 of 2018

¶42

Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:

¶43

(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;

¶44

(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;

¶45

(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.

¶46

(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.

¶47

(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment.

¶48

The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.

¶49

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing

¶50

¶51

WP No. 56107 of 2018

¶52

the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above.

¶53

(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance For enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order XXI ….."

¶54

Therefore, instead of considering impugned order on

¶55

merits, it would be appropriate to set aside impugned order and

¶56

remand matter back for reconsideration.

¶57

Accordingly, following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

Writ petition is allowed in part, impugned order dated 18.09.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Challakere, in M.C.No.20/2017 vide Annexure-G, is quashed. Matter is remitted back to pass orders afresh after following directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Neha 's case (supra).

¶60

To expedite same, both parties are directed to file respective affidavits disclosing assets, liabilities income etc.

¶61

¶62

WP No. 56107 of 2018

¶63

within four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order or next date of hearing in pending case, whichever is later.

¶64

Learned Civil Judge shall thereafter hear parties and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks

¶65

thereafter.

¶66

All contentions of both parties kept open.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Psg*

Sri G C Thipperudrappa v. Smt Lakshmidevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G C Thipperudrappa v. Smt Lakshmidevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Paridhi Buildcon Private Limited Vs District Registrar

Sri Kiran C Vs Smt. Manasa S Kumara

Sri Chandran Kunnath Vs Sri D Sundaradas

Sri P Gopinath Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Smt Jayalakshmi v Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

M/S Printers India Vs State of Karnataka