Allowed

Malike Saba v. Sameer Hamsa Ramla

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024CRL.P/2891/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges Sessions Court order reducing interim maintenance for minor child from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000. Bencheside holds reduction erroneous despite both parents earning. Petitioner, parent in person. Court restores trial order and sets aside Sessions order.

What did the court decide?

Sessions order reduced maintenance set aside; Magistrate order fixing Rs.50,000/month interim maintenance restored.

Malike Saba Vs Sameer Hamsa Ramla — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on : 23.10.2024 Pronounced on : 22.11.2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2891 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MALIKE SABA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O EHTASHAMUL HAQUE, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, EHTASHAMUL HAQUE S/O MOHAMMED YUSUF, BOTH R/AT APARTMENT NO. 3067, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN, ITPL ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 048. MOBILE: 9837613777.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MALIKE SABA, PARTY-IN PERSON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SAMEER HAMSA RAMLA S/O LATE A.HAMSA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT:1161, COLFAX AVENUE, DES PLAINES,

¶13

¶14

IILINOIS, USA - 60016.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT.DEEPA J., ADVOCATE )

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2024 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.38/2023 BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A WHICH REDUCES INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF MINOR CHILD FROM RS.50,000/(RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND) TO RS.25,000/- EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2023 AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.10.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶20

CAV ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 19-01-2024 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural in Criminal Revision Petition No. 38 of 2023 whereby the Court of Sessions reduces the maintenance to the child from 50,000/- to 25,000/- per month as directed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District by his

¶22

¶23

order dated 16-06-2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.369 of 2021 in a proceeding instituted by the petitioner/wife claiming maintenance from the hands of the respondent to the child under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard the petitioner party-in-person and Smt. J.Deepa,

¶25

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

Facts in brief, germane are as follows;

¶27

The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband. The two get married on 25-09-2016. It is the second marriage to both of them. At the time of marriage, the husband was residing at Chicago, United States of America where he was employed. The petitioner, after marriage, joins the respondent in Chicago. From the wedlock a daughter is born on 10-07-2018. The marital discard emerges between the husband and the wife. It is the claim of the petitioner/mother that she was driven out of the house along with the minor daughter at Chicago which forced them to return to India on 03-01-2019. The discard appears to have subsided and the petitioner with the daughter reunited/re joined the husband back in

¶28

¶29

the United States of America. On 02-06-2021 it is the allegation that the husband harms the daughter and assaulted the petitioner, upon which immediately thereafter, the petitioner and her daughter are said to have returned back to India. On return, the petitioner files Criminal Miscellaneous No.369 of 2021 before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking interim maintenance for her minor daughter. The concerned Court issues notice to the respondent. The petitioner/wife then files her affidavit of assets and liabilities.

¶30

The respondent/husband invokes Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court for return of the minor child to his custody at USA. This comes to be dismissed by an order of this Court on 12-04-2022. The husband challenges the same in S.L.P.No.4945 of 2022. The Apex Court also dismisses the said special leave petition. The respondent then appears in the criminal miscellaneous petition and files his objections and affidavit of assets and liabilities. The learned Magistrate after scrutiny of assets and liabilities statements of both the petitioner and the respondent grants interim maintenance of `50,000/- per month for the minor daughter from

¶31

¶32

the date of filing of the petition. The husband challenges the same before the Court of Sessions in Criminal Revision Petition No.38 of 2023. The revisional Court by an order dated 17-07-2023 stays the said order and finally reduces the maintenance to the child by 50% to what the learned Magistrate had granted, to become effective from 01-04-2023. It is this order that has driven the wife to this Court in the subject petition, calling in question the reduction so made by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶33

The petitioner who appears in person would vehemently contend that the income of the husband is close to $12,500 per month. There was no warrant to reduce the amount of maintenance payable to the daughter. The wife has not claimed any maintenance for herself as she is employed. Therefore, it was the duty of the father to pay maintenance towards his daughter for an amount of $12,500 dollars that the husband earns and the amount of maintenance granted is only at 0.5% of his income. The assets and liabilities statement filed before the concerned Court by the husband was concocted with all falsities which led the Court of

¶34

¶35

Sessions to believe the same and reduce the maintenance at `25,000/-.

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel Smt. J.Deepa representing the husband/respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the wife is earning and it is also her duty to take care of daily needs of the daughter. It is contended that the husband has been making payments to the wife since 18-04-2022 up to 30-06-2024 as and when asked – multiple times, towards fees for the school of the minor child. It is her contention that he has contributed towards the savings of the minor child when she was residing in USA and now the contribution has grown to $16,056 and that is for the child. She would further contend that the husband has a dependent of 70 years old mother to take care and the wife has no dependents of that kind and only the daughter born from the wedlock. She would, by taking this Court through the documents, contend that the child born from the wedlock is only 6 years old and the monthly needs of a 6 years old child cannot be 50,000/- and therefore, submits that the amount of 25,000/that is reduced from `50,000/- by the learned Sessions Judge is

¶37

¶38

just and proper. She would seek affirmation of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶39

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

¶40

The afore-narrated factum of marriage, the child being born from the wedlock, the marital discard, reunion and a second bout of discard are all a matter of record. They would not require any reiteration. It would suffice if the story would commence from the wife filing a petition before the concerned Court seeking maintenance invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The wife files the petition on her return to India on 31-07-2021. Certain events that have taken place between the first bout of discard and the second are required to be succinctly noticed. On 29-12-2018, it is the case of the wife, that the husband drove her and the minor daughter out of his house in Chicago, USA, after which the wife came back to India. It is the case of the husband that he wanted to get in touch with the petitioner and later with the help of the Police, the

¶41

¶42

husband comes to know that the wife has travelled back to India along with the child.

¶43

The wife had filed cases in O.S.No.188 of 2019, O.S.No.60 of 2019 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.23 of 2019 against the husband and other members of the family. The maintenance was also sought for the daughter in Criminal Miscellaneous No.23 of 2019. The marital discard subsides. The wife goes back to USA along with the child to the husband’s fold on 03-12-2020, on certain settlement arrived at between them. The averment is that the husband has promised to reform himself and take care of the wife and the daughter. About 4 months thereafter, the second bout of discard emerges which leads the petitioner back to the shores of the nation along with the child on 22-06-2021. She then prefers the application seeking maintenance from the hands of the husband. Since the wife alleged to have taken the child and travelled back to India, the husband had instituted a petition before this Court invoking Habeas Corpus jurisdiction for return of the child back to his custody at USA. This comes to be dismissed and the dismissal gets affirmation from the hands of the Apex court.

¶44

¶45

The issue does not relate to the custody of the child. As observed hereinabove, the wife files an application before the concerned Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.369 of 2021 claiming maintenance to the minor daughter. In the proceedings, both the husband and the wife file their respective assets and liabilities statements in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA – (2021) 2 SCC 324 . Recording assets and liabilities statements, the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 16-06-2023 grants interim maintenance by the following order:

¶46

“….

¶47

POINT NO.1: It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband. It is also an admitted fact that, the minor daughter Zoya Sameer Malike is born to them. The documents furnished by the respondent clearly noticed that the respondent has transferred an amount of Rs.51,700/- to the account of Zoya Sameer Malike, who is the daughter of petitioner and respondent. Here in this case, the petitioner also admitted that before filing of this petition the respondent paid Rs.51,700/- towards school fee of her daughter, but after filing of this petition the respondent never paid any money towards school fee and other expenses of his minor daughter. Whether to know that the amount paid by the respondent is sufficient or not to his daughter, full fledged trial is required. But, at this stage it cannot be conducted full-fledged trial.

¶48

Here in this petition, the respondent stated that, his wife is well educated and earning handsome salary and also

¶49

¶50

having properties in India and as such she does not require money from him to maintain to her minor child. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “if the wife is earning it cannot be operated as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband to his minor daughter” . As such, the contention taken by the respondent is not bar to direct him to pay the monthly maintenance to his minor daughter towards school fee and other expenses. Further more, the respondent has not produced any documents to show that he is paying maintenance to his minor child after filing of this petition. But, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain her minor child as a dutiful father. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out sufficient ground to granting interim maintenance to her minor daughter towards school fee and other expenses. Accordingly, I answered the above point No.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

¶51

POINT NO.2: In view of the discussion made on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The I.A.I. filed by the petitioner U/Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.

¶54

Accordingly, it is hereby directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- to his minor child towards school fee and other expenses from the date of this petition.”

¶55

The order is directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of `50,000/- to the minor child towards school fee and other expenses from the date of the petition. As observed hereinabove, the petition was filed on 31-07-2021 and maintenance is awarded from the date of filing of the petition. This is challenged by the respondent before the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition

¶56

¶57

No.38 of 2023. The revisional Court reduces the maintenance noticing the fact that the wife is also earning. The reason so rendered for reduction of maintenance by the Court of Sessions is as follows:

¶58

Admittedly, the petitioner is working in USA and he is earning salary in dollars. The petitioner in his Assets and Liabilities has mentioned that his take home salary is $6995.8. Since the petitioner is residing in USA, his expenses would also will be in Dollars. Before fixing the quantum of maintenance, the court has to consider the Purchasing Power Parity Index. It is pertinent to mention here that Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is an economic concept that measures the value of country’s currency in terms of its ability to purchase goods and services, relative to another country’s currency. In other words, PPP is a method used to compare the economic out put and living standards of different countries by taking into account differences in the cost of living and inflation rates. As per the PPP index released by the World Bank, the dollar cannot be converted into the Rupees at the prevailing exchange rate. The dollar must be multiplied with PPP conversion factor. As per the said PPP index, the conversion rate for India is Rs.23.22. The salary of the petitioner is $6995.8, when multiplied by Rs.23.22 comes to 1,62,442 per month.

¶59

It is the contention of the petitioner that he is taking care of his first child (through first wife) who is aged about nine years. Further, he has to take care of his mother, who is living in Kerala. He has opened 1529 school and college savings account when the child was in USA and he has invested $10,000/- towards the same. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced documents before the Court.

¶60

It is pertinent to note here that the respondent in her objections filed before the Court has submitted that she is earning gross salary of Rs.35/- lakhs per annum. It is clear that the respondent has got monthly income of Rs.2.91 lakhs. The

¶61

¶62

documents brought on record reveal that both the petitioner and respondent are equally qualified and both are working in a reputed companies. Further, the respondent has got monthly income of Rs.2.91 lakhs. Hence, both the petitioner and the respondent has to equally contribute towards the welfare of the child and her expenses. Further, it is contended by the petitioner that in the G & WC 24 of 2021 case filed by the respondent for custody of the child, she has taken a contention that she is currently employed at M/s TECHCHEFS (Virtusa) Bangalore and earning salary of Rs.2.50 lakhs per month. She is more than capable of taking care of the needs of the child. Additionally, she has the backup and support of her parents who live with her. Hence, it is clear that the respondent has got financial capacity to equally contribute towards the maintenance of the child.

¶63

It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 266 has held that, father and earning mother both bound to contribute to maintenance of their children in proportion to their income. Law does not enjoin that father is exclusively responsible regardless of mother being affluent.

¶64

Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents brought on record, this Court is of the view that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the trial Court has to be reduced.

¶65

The another contention of the revision petitioner is that, the maintenance amount should have been awarded from the date of the interim application and not from the date of the petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 has held that, the right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing of the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.

¶66

In the instant case, the interim application for maintenance was filed only on 01-04-2023, whereas the main petition was filed in the year 2021. But the trial Court has directed the petitioner herein to pay the monthly maintenance

¶67

¶68

of Rs.50,000/- to the minor child from the date of the petition. It is pertinent to mention here that both the petitioner and the respondent are claiming that they are taking care of the child. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that even during the pendency of the petition he has contributed towards the welfare of the child. Hence, there is contentious issues between the petitioner and the respondent regarding the contribution made by them towards the welfare of the child. The said issue has to be decided at the full-fledged trial. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance amount from the date of the interim application. In the facts and circumstances made out, the impugned order passed by the trial Court calls for interference by this court. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative .

¶69

POINT NO.3 : In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶70

O R D E R

¶71

The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C is hereby partly allowed.

¶72

Consequently, the impugned order dated 16-06-2023 passed by the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.369 of 2021 is hereby modified.

¶73

The petitioner herein is hereby directed to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the child from the date of the interim application.

¶74

Send the copy of this order forthwith to the trial Court.”

¶75

The Court of Sessions observes that the husband is directed to pay

¶76

`50,000/- per month towards maintenance of the child. It observes that both the petitioner and the respondent should take care of the child. The issue projected will have to be decided on a full-fledged

¶77

¶78

trial. Therefore, grant of interim maintenance at 50,000/- is on the higher side and accordingly reduces it to 25,000/-. The further observation is that since both the father and mother are earning they should contribute towards maintenance of the child proportionately. There need not be exclusive responsibility to one parent when both of them are earning well and working.

¶79

To decide the issue whether reduction of maintenance was appropriate or otherwise, I deem it appropriate to notice the income of both the husband and the wife. The assets and liabilities statements of both the husband and the wife are a matter of record. The affidavit of the husband insofar as the income and expenditure is as follows:

¶80

“7	General monthly expenses of the Applicant (rent, household expenses, medical bills, transportation, etc.):	Monthly Expenses: Approximate and actual details below
		a. Mortgage home loan:$2440.49 per month (Till 2040) b. Expenses through credit cards (living expenses,

¶81

¶82

	utilities, services
	etc.):$2053.24
	per month
c.	Homeowner
	Association Fee: $217.91 Per Month
d.	Utilities
	(Electricity, sewage disposal, monthly vehicle insurance, City charges) through debit card: $188.59 per month
e.	Property Tax on
f.	home:$525.57 (per month) Home
	Insurance:$20 per month
g.	Misc. expenses: $200 (per month)
h.	Support for elder
	daughter aged
	about 9 years:
	$1000 per month (Studying in USA)
i.	Medical
	expenses for
	elder daughter
	aged about 9
	years in USA
	$500-1000 per 50-100
	year.($
	per month)
j.	Guaranteed
	College
	investment for

¶83

¶84

elder daughter
through ESPP
from 2018 in
USA$21250
per year($1770.84 per month)
k. Guaranteed
College savings
for younger
daughter in USA
$5000 per
year($417 per
month)
l. Second daughter
Zoya educational
fee. ($1250 for
academic year 2022-2023-
$105 per
month as of
today)
m. Health Saving -
$3000 per
year-$250 per
month
n. Existing Legal
expenses for all
cases in respect
of parties here -
$500 per
month
o. Transfer to my
mother who is
dependent on
me$3342 per
year-$278 per
month
ANNEXURE-3
attached the mortgage loan.

¶85

¶86

ANNEXURE-4
attached has	other
expenses.”

¶87

The husband, more than the assets and liabilities, has projected several cases filed by the wife against him. Nonetheless, the income per month of the husband is US $12,500 per month, which converts to about 8.5 lakhs per month** . The wife is also earning as a Technical Specialist and her monthly income is ** 1,84,114 . The details of expenditure of the child is also appended to the petition. The expenditure runs to about **1.5 lakhs per month** . For this expenditure, the petitioner/wife is contributing reminder of the amount, after the husband pays50,000/- per month as directed by the learned Magistrate by way of interim maintenance. While it is a fact that both the petitioner and the respondent are earning, it cannot be that the husband will not contribute even 0.5% of his income .

¶88

The revisional Court, contrary to the records, takes monthly salary of the husband at ` 1,62,442 per month believing the expenditure that is projected by the husband. The reduction of

¶89

¶90

maintenance on the score that both the husband and wife should equally contribute, it may be correct, in the case at hand both are contributing but not equally. The order impugned runs contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DR. KULBHUSHAN KUMAR v. SMT. RAJ KUMARI¹ which is reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of KALYAN DEY CHOWDHURY v. RITA DEY CHOWDHURY NEE NANDY² . The Apex Court in the case of DR. KULBHUSHAN KUMAR supra has held as follows:

¶91

“…. …. ….

¶92

16. Counsel for the appellant also relied on subclause (e) to sub-section (2) on the ground that he had to maintain his aged mother. Unfortunately, however, the husband had laid no ground to such a claim in his testimony before the Court. He was not the only son of his mother and it appears from the evidence given by him that his family owned some lands which were being looked after by the mother. In the absence of any express statement by the husband himself in his examination, no reliance can be placed on the claim made on his behalf.

¶93

17. Reference was made on behalf of the appellant to the decision of the Judicial Committee in MstEkradeshwari v. Homeshwar [AIR 1929 PC 128: 33 CWN 637: 1929 ALJ 695: 31 Bom LR 816; 30 MLW 1: 57 MLJ 50] where the Board had to deal with the case of a widow of a deceased in the junior line of the well-known Darbhanga family in Bihar. The

¶94

1 (1970)3 SCC 129

¶95

2 (2017)14 SCC 200

¶96

¶97

trial court had found in that case that the gross income of the estate was Rs 1,50,000 per annum, but the net income was only Rs 33,000 per annum after payment of the interest on the heavy encumbrances on the estate in respect of which litigation was pending between the estate and the Maharaja of Darbhanga. In rejecting the claim of the widow to an annual maintenance of Rs 18,000 and upholding the concurrent findings of the Courts in India that the maintenance allowance should be fixed at Rs 4200 per annum, the Board approved of the observations of the Subordinate Judge to the effect that the said sum would enable the lady “to live as far as may be consistently with the position of a widow in something like the same degree of comfort and with the same reasonable luxury of life as she had in her husband's lifetime ”. According to the Board, maintenance depended:

¶98

“upon a gathering together of all the facts of the situation, the amount of free estate, the past life of the married parties and the families, a survey of the conditions and necessities and rights of the members, on a reasonable view of change of circumstances possibly required in the future, regard being, of course, had to the scale and mode of living, and to age, habits, wants and class of life of the parties.”

¶99

With respect we are in entire agreement with the above dictum and in our view sub-section (2) of Section 23 makes no departure from the principles enunciated by the Board, except perhaps to a limited extent envisaged in sub-clauses ( d ) and ( e ) of the said sub-section.

¶100

18. It was argued before us that inasmuch as the Board allowed as quantum of maintenance 1/8th of the net income of the estate we should adopt the same rate. In our view, the Board laid down no principle related to the proportion of the free income allowable by way of maintenance from the estate. It is to be borne in mind that the maintenance claim was by a widow of a Brahmin family

¶101

¶102

although highly placed in life. Here we have the case of a wife who was neglected by her husband not in affluent circumstances but certainly with means to support a wife on a reasonable scale of comfort.

¶103

19. It was further argued before us that the High Court went wrong in allowing maintenance at 25 per cent of the income of the appellant as found by the Income Tax Department in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act. It was contended that not only should a deduction be made of income tax but also of house rent, electricity charges, the expenses for maintaining a car and the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the appellant. In our view, some of these deductions are not allowable for the purpose of assessment of “free income” as envisaged by the Judicial Committee. Income tax would certainly be deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund which have to be made compulsorily. No deduction is permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges. The expenses for maintaining the car for the purpose of appellant's practice as a physician would be deductible only so far as allowed by the income tax authorities i.e. in case the authorities found that it was necessary for the appellant to maintain a car.

¶104

20. The question as to the date from which maintenance would be claimable was also mooted before the Judicial Committee in the above case. The High Court had turned down the widow's claim to arrears of maintenance. Examining the several decisions cited before it, the Board took the view that the widow was entitled to maintenance not from the date of the decree as found by the Courts below nor from the date of the suit in April, 1922, but from 1st of January, 1922, in view of the fact that it was towards the end of the year 1921 when the widow had made up her mind to stay on at her father's place. In this case, as already noted, the claim to maintenance was first laid by a lawyer's notice of 1951 but the suit was filed in 1954. The trial court decreed maintenance from the date of the decree in 1957 but the High Court thought fit to allow maintenance from the date

¶105

¶106

of the institution of the suit. No exception can be taken to the fixing of the date of institution of the suit as the terminus a quo for the maintenance claimed by the respondent.”

¶107

(Emphasis supplied)

¶108

The Apex Court in case of KALYAN DEY CHOWDHURY ’s case supra

¶109

has held as follows:

¶110

“….

¶111

14. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who claims the same by making an application. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding under the Act under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25. In exercising the power under Section 25(2), the court would have regard to the “change in the circumstances of the parties”. There must be some change in the circumstances of either party which may have to be taken into account when an application is made under sub-section (2) of Section 25 for variation, modification or rescission of the order as the court may deem just.

¶112

15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-2015 [ Rita Dey Chaudhury v. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury , 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10447] awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income

¶113

¶114

tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95,527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [ Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari , (1970) 3 SCC 129], in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs 23,000 to Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son .

¶115

16. In the result, the maintenance amount of Rs 23,000 awarded to the respondent wife is reduced to Rs 20,000 per month and the impugned judgment is modified and this appeal is partly allowed. The maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month is payable to the respondent wife on or before 10th of every succeeding English calendar month. No costs.”

¶116

(Emphasis supplied)

¶117

Both the aforementioned judgments would indicate that maintenance should be on the purchasing power parity when husband and wife are employed and earning, towards the maintenance of the child. The assets and liabilities of the husband

¶118

¶119

if noticed, as quoted supra , would project only monthly salary of a particular month. The annual income of the husband is not filed before the concerned Court. The revisional Court proceeds on the footing that the husband has several expenditures and, therefore the amount of maintenance granted has to be reduced. The question of grant of interim maintenance to the minor daughter or to the wife depends upon manifold factors and circumstances of expenditure that would ensue. It cannot be stagnant. It could vary and variance cannot result in reduction, but can always result in enhancement.

¶120

Therefore, the order of the Court of Sessions which reduces maintenance from 50,000/- to 25,000/- in the teeth of the income of the husband being close to 10,50,000/- per month is on the face of it erroneous. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge requires to be set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate directing maintenance at 50,000/- needs to be restored. This would be as an interim measure.

¶121

¶122

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶123

O R D E R

¶124

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶125

(ii) The order dated 19-01-2024 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Criminal Revision Petition No.38 of 2023 is set aside and the order dated 16-06-2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District in Criminal Miscellaneous No.369 of 2021 stands restored.

¶126

(iii) It is needless to observe that the husband has to clear the dues of maintenance, before the concerned Court takes up the issue on its merit, as the subject issue relates to interim maintenance.

¶127

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed as a

¶128

consequence.

¶129

Sd/-

¶130

(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶131

Bkp CT:MJ

Malike Saba v. Sameer Hamsa Ramla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malike Saba v. Sameer Hamsa Ramla

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

Mutta Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. B. Gopalakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K B Shivalinge Gowda @ K B S Gowda Vs Smt M C Shobha @ Sumitha

Chaluvaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prabhakar S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.D.Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka