Partly allowed

Venkatesha v. Hemalatha S

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024RPFC/102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order awarding Rs.40,000/- p.m. maintenance. The High Court allowed the petition in part, modifying the impugned order to award Rs.30,000/- p.m. considering the petitioner's retired status and pending legal proceedings regarding his assets.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is modified; respondent entitled to Rs.30,000/- p.m. maintenance from petitioner from date of petition till lifetime.

Venkatesha Vs Hemalatha S — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 102 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VENKATESHA S/O LATE JAYARAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT S R COMPLEX, NEAR R R WING RING ROAD, HASSAN - 573201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

HEMALATHA S W/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO 113, KALPATHURU 2^ND MAIN, E CROSS, 1^ST STAGE VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570017

¶15

(BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.03.2024 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.852/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of

¶24

the Family Court Act, challenging the order dated 6.03.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.852/2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru.

¶25

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this revision petition are as follows:

¶26

The marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent on 30.05.1997 at Hemavathi Kalyana Mantap, Chennarayapatna, Hassan district, as per the customs prevailing in their community and after their marriage, both have led a happy married life. Later on, the petitioner and respondent shifted to Sakleshpura. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. The petitioner cultivated an illicit relationship with another woman; when questioned by the respondent, the petitioner threatened to kill her. For the children's education, the petitioner made a rented house in Mysuru, wherein the respondent and her

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶28

¶29

children were staying, and the petitioner used to visit them during the weekend. Lokayukta raided the petitioner's house and Lokayukta seized the petitioner's assets. The petitioner neglected the respondent and stopped paying the rent. The respondent filed a petition under (Section 125 of Cr.P.C.) Section 144 of Cr.P.C. of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Crl.Misc.No.852/2022.

¶30

The petitioner filed a written statement admitting the relationship with the respondent and denied the illicit relationship with other ladies. It is contended that the petitioner cannot pay the maintenance as sought by the respondent. The Lokayukta police have registered a criminal case against the petitioner on the grounds of corruption, and the police seized documents about the properties. It is contended that the petitioner never neglected the respondent. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶32

To establish her case, the respondent examined herself as PW.1 and marked 32 documents as Exs.P1 to P32. In rebuttal, the petitioner was examined as RW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.R1 to 13. The Family Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and assessing oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part and held that the respondent is entitled to maintenance amount from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.40,000/- p.m., from the date of petition till her lifetime and the petitioner is directed to pay future maintenance as and when it becomes due to the respondent. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.852/2022, filed this writ petition.

¶33

Heard Sri. Mohan B.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Y.K. Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was working as a Government servant in the PWD Department and retired from service in January

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶36

The Family Court did not consider the said aspect. He submits that the Family Court, based on the salary certificate produced by the respondent, has passed an impugned order awarding a maintenance of Rs.40,000/p.m. The maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court is exorbitant. He submits that Lokayukta has registered a criminal case against the petitioner for corruption, and Lokayukta seized all the properties. Even after retirement, the petitioner could not get the retirement benefits. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner has a sufficient source of income for paying maintenance to the respondent. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the petition.

¶38

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶40

The point that arises for consideration is:

¶41

Has the petitioner made the grounds to interfere with the impugned order?

¶42

The respondent, to prove her case, examined herself as PW.1. She reiterated the petition averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents, marriage invitation card and also to establish that the petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer in PWD department and also to establish that he has filed a criminal case against the respondent and the respondent has neglected the petitioner from maintaining. During cross-examination, it was elicited that the petitioner provided a separate residence to the respondent. Though the respondent has made an allegation against the petitioner regarding the illicit relationship with other ladies and a criminal case was lodged against him by the respondent, the police, after investigation, filed a B report. The said fact was admitted by PW.1, and she has also admitted that the petitioner has financially held her at the

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶44

time of marriage of her younger sister. She also admits that the petitioner bears all the rent and expenditure, and it was elicited that both the children are majors and working in Bengaluru.

¶45

On the other hand, the petitioner was examined as RW.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents to establish that the petitioner has provided residence to the respondent. The RW.1 has stated explicitly that he has retired from service and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.90,000/- p.m before his retirement, and his pension is not yet finalized. The parties to the petition have filed a statement of assets and liabilities. The petitioner has stated his income as Rs.90,000/- p.m. However, the respondent has not produced records to establish the petitioner's salary. The petitioner retired from service in January 2024. The pension is not yet settled due to the pendency of a criminal case lodged by Lokayukta, and the said aspect was not considered by the Family

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41381 RPFC No. 102 of 2024

¶47

Court, which passed the impugned order. As the petitioner retired from service and all the properties, including the bank accounts, were seized by the Lokayukta, the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court was on the higher side. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶48

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The revision petition is partly allowed.

¶51

The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 is modified. The respondent is entitled to a maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- p.m. from the petitioner from the date of the petition till her lifetime.

¶52

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶53

sks

Venkatesha v. Hemalatha S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesha v. Hemalatha S

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

M/S Shri Santhosh Meenakshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Sri Rajegowda G D Vs Panchayath Development Officer

Sri. Vinuth S P Vs Sri. Siddeshwara Prasad H R

Sri Yashwanth D Vs Smt Divyashree C

Mahboob Khan Vs Smt Hayath Bi

Mrs Rajeswari Somasundaram Vs v R Kumar