Partly allowed

Sri.Ashwinkumar S/O. Prahlad Pise v. Smt.Jayalaxmi W/O. Ashwinkumar Pise

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024RPFC/100007/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a revision petition regarding maintenance in a divorce case filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The High Court enhanced the wife's maintenance and directed the husband to pay school fees.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.6,000/- per month for the daughter; Respondent directed to pay school fees.

Sri.Ashwinkumar S/O. Prahlad Pise Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7621 RPFC No. 100034 of 2020 C/W RPFC No. 100007 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

RPFC NO. 100034 OF 2020 C/W. RPFC NO. 100007 OF 2020

¶8

In RPFC No.100034/2020:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JAYALAXMI W/O. ASHWINKUMAR PEESE, AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TABIBLAND, HUBBALLI – 580 020.

¶11

KUMARI TANISHKA D/O. ASHWINKUMAR PEESE, AGE : 10 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O.TABIBLAND, HUBBALLI-580020

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(PETITIONER NO.2 IS THE MINOR R/BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1)

¶14

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

ASHWINKUMAR S/O. PRAHLAD PEESE, AGE : 59 YEARS, OCC : PRIVATE SERVICE (ADVOCATE), R/O : HOUSE NO.135, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, L.M.PURAM, SHIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI H.S.SURESH AND IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATES)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7621 RPFC No. 100034 of 2020 C/W RPFC No. 100007 of 2020

¶20

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENHANCE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN CRIM.MISC.NO.337/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶21

In RPFC No.100007/2020:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SRI ASHWINKUMAR S/O. PRAHLAD PISE, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/AT: HOUSE NO.135, 4^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, M.L.PURAM, SHRRERAMPURAM, BENGALURU.

¶24

…PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI H.S.SURESH AND IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATES)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SMT. JAYALAXMI W/O. ASHWINKUMAR PISE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD.

¶28

KUMARI TANISHKA D/O. ASHWINKUMAR PISE, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT.JAYALAXMI W/O. ASHWINKUMAR PISE

¶29

BOTH ARE R/O: TABEEB LAND, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 020.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1)

¶32

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.11.2019, IN CRL.MISC. NO.337/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI AND ETC.,

¶33

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

¶34

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7621 RPFC No. 100034 of 2020 C/W RPFC No. 100007 of 2020

¶35

ORDER

¶36

RPFC No.100034/2020 is filed by the petitioners - wife &daughter of the respondent seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- & Rs.5,000/respectively granted by the Prl. Family Court, Hubballi by its order dated 08.11.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. No.337/2017 and RPFC No.100007/2020 is filed by the petitioner – husband seeking reduction of the maintenance amount.

¶37

The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on the 19.12.2007. The allegations are made against the Respondent – husband regarding harassment and demands for cash and jewelry. It is contended that, the respondent-husband made the petitioner-wife to stay with her parents on the promise of he taking her to Bengaluru. However, he was visiting on and off but he did not take the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2-daughter was born on 05.11.2010. Ever since then, the petitioner has been residing with her

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7621 RPFC No. 100034 of 2020 C/W RPFC No. 100007 of 2020

¶39

parents with the child and the respondent-husband has neglected to maintain his wife and the child, constraining them to approach the Court by filing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

The petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and

¶41

two additional witnesses were examined as PW2 & PW3, exhibited 19 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P19. However, the respondent has not appeared before the Family Court and has not contested the matter.

¶42

Taking note of the evidence available on record, the Family Court has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to petitioner No.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.2-daughter.

¶43

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, the petitioners are before this Court seeking enhancement of maintenance and the respondent is before this Court

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7621 RPFC No. 100034 of 2020 C/W RPFC No. 100007 of 2020

¶45

seeking reduction of the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶47

Respondent-husband is that the respondent is an Advocate by profession practicing at Bengaluru. This Court had directed the parties to file declaration in the form of affidavits of their assets and liabilities, which is filed. The respondent-husband claims to have been earning only Rs.20,000/- per month depending upon the cases. He has also enclosed the copy of the Income Tax returns showing his net income as Rs.3,70,250/- p.a.

¶48

Be that as it may. Considering the factual

¶49

aspect of the matter, more particularly, the respondent being a practicing Advocate, presently aged about 63 years, it is inconceivable that he is earning only Rs.20,000/- per month in the city of Bangalore.

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7621 RPFC No. 100034 of 2020 C/W RPFC No. 100007 of 2020

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a reasonable enhancement can be made but not as being claimed the petitioners.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1-wife submits that, petitioner No.2 is studying in 8^th standard in Rotary School and the annual fee payable is Rs.23,000/-. That apart, she also has to bear the other routine expenses.

¶53

In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – husband fairly submits that, the respondenthusband is ready and willing to pay the actual School Fees subject to the petitioner No.1-wife furnishing the information of the School Fees of their daughter payable annually. The said submission is taken on record as an undertaking on behalf of the respondent.

¶54

Considering the status of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7621 RPFC No. 100034 of 2020 C/W RPFC No. 100007 of 2020

¶56

month payable to the wife and Rs.6,000/- per motnh payable to the daughter.

¶57

Further the respondent-husband shall pay the School fees as undertaken subject to petitioner No.1-wife furnishing / intimating the respondent-husband about the school fees as and when the same becomes payable.

¶58

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in part.

¶59

SD/JUDGE

¶60

Vnp*

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri.Ashwinkumar S/O. Prahlad Pise v. Smt.Jayalaxmi W/O. Ashwinkumar Pise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Ashwinkumar S/O. Prahlad Pise v. Smt.Jayalaxmi W/O. Ashwinkumar Pise

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 M Vindya Alias Kiranmayi W/O Ravikumar C D Vs Sri C D Ravikumar S/O C D Manohar

Mallikarjun S/O Maruti Mangaj Vs the Director of Municipal

Dr. Ramanagouda S/O Shankargouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Praveen S/O Ishwar Chavan Vs Mrs Vaishnavi W/O Praveen Chavan

Mr.Venkatraman D Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Mallikarjun S/O Sanna Yallappa, Vs the Assistant Commissioner