Partly allowed

Smt Sowmya @ Sowmya Karanth v. H S Raghavendra

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2024RPFC/11/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a revision petition challenging the Family Court's refusal of maintenance to a wife. Setting aside the lower order, the Court awarded ₹12,000 to the wife and enhanced the daughter's maintenance to ₹10,000, citing the husband's sufficient income from a petrol bunk and astrology practice despite the wife's non-joining after a restitution decree.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; maintenance of Rs. 12,000/month awarded to wife and Rs. 10,000/month to daughter granted.

Smt Sowmya @ Sowmya Karanth Vs H S Raghavendra — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REV.PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.11 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SOWMYA @ SOWMYA KARANTH W/O H.S.RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O 5^TH CROSS, SHESHADRIPURAM, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶10

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KUM. SRIDHANAVI D/O H.S.RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL MOTHER 1^ST PETITIONER SMT. SOWMYA KARANTH R/O 5^TH CROSS, SHESHADRIPURAM SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

H.S.RAGHAVENDRA S/O SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER AND OWNER OF PETROL BUNK R/O NO.1, “DWARAKA”, 3^RD CROSS N. R. COLONY, BENGALURU - 19

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶17

ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS

¶18

NO.16, BRINDAVANA 3^RD CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI M.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.115/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This revision petition is filed by the petitioners

¶25

calling in question the order dated 31.07.2018 passed in C.Misc.No.115/2012 by the Family Court in refusing to grant maintenance amount to petitioner No.1-wife and also for seeking enhancement of maintenance amount to petitioner No.2-daughter.

¶26

Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶28

Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the

¶29

respondent and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of first petitioner and respondent. Relationship between the petitioners and respondent is not disputed. The Family Court has denied to award maintenance to petitioner No.1wife and granted maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-daughter. Hence, for not granting maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife and for seeking enhancement of maintenance amount to petitioner No.2-daughter, the instant revision petition is filed.

¶30

The Family Court has observed while denying maintenance amount to petitioner No.1-wife on the reason that petitioner No.1-wife is working as an accountant in his brother’s business namely Vasavadatta Cement Agency and on assuming that petitioner No.1-wife is earning income of Rs.15,000/- per month from the said agency and being working as an accountant denied the maintenance amount. Another reason assigned by the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶32

Family Court in denying the maintenance amount is that petitioner No.1-wife has purchased Honda Activa scooter. Therefore, assumed that petitioner No.1-wife is having her own income and besides petitioner No.2-daughter was admitted to the National Public School, Shivamogga, which is the expensive school and when daughter was admitted to the said school, it is assumed that petitioner No.1-wife is having income, thus denied the maintenance amount.

¶33

Further the reason assigned is that the

¶34

respondent-husband has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and after decree of the said petition, petitioner No.1-wife did not join the respondent-husband. Therefore, came to the conclusion that desertion by petitioner No.1-wife is on her own will and voluntary. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance. Therefore, upon assigning these reasons, denied maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife. The Family Court has granted

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶36

maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- to petitioner No.2daughter.

¶37

Upon considering these facts and evidence

¶38

on record, the Family Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence on record on all its preponderance of probability and observation of the Family Court is perverse in nature. The respondent-husband has not produced any evidence to show that petitioner No.1wife is gainfully employed. However, the Family Court has committed error in observing that petitioner No.1-wife is an earning person. The Family Court has committed error in considering Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2-photos, which shows that petitioner No.1-wife sat in the shop and observed that she is working in the said shop. This observation is completely erroneous. First petitioner’s brother is running Vasavadatta Cement Agency, which does not mean that petitioner No.1 is doing business. The Family Court assumed itself that petitioner No.1 is working as an accountant in her brother’s shop without there being any

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶40

evidence by the respondent. When petitioner No.1-wife was deserted by the respondent-husband, she started residing in her parent’s house, quite naturally, if brother is running business and petitioner No.1 may be in the shop, but that does not mean that petitioner No.1 is gainfully employed person. Therefore, in this regard, the Family Court has committed error. These types of proceedings are considered upon preponderance of probability, but not by approaching the theory of beyond reasonable doubt. Appreciation of evidence on preponderance of probability means appreciating the evidence produced by both sides in the proceedings and what the Court would get impression regarding income and financial viability of the respondent-husband and petitioner No.1-wife can be gathered. The Family Court has failed to consider the case on its preponderance of probability.

¶41

The Family Court has assumed itself that

¶42

the father of petitioner No.1-wife is financially poor person and he is not able to purchase Honda Activa scooter in the

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶44

name of his daughter–petitioner No.1. Therefore, the Family Court assuming itself that when petitioner No.1 has Honda Activa scooter, it means that petitioner No.1-wife is having sufficient income. This approach of the Family Court is not correct since either father or brother of petitioner No.1 might have purchased Honda Activa scooter in the name of petitioner No.1 and that does not mean that petitioner No.1 is having sufficient income to maintain herself and daughter.

¶45

8. Therefore, the evidence appreciated by

¶46

the Family Court is full of surmises and conjectures even the Family Court has not expressed its rationality on the facts and evidence on record. Petitioner No.1-wife has got admission to her daughter in the National Public School, Shivamogga. The said school may be expensive one. It is the anxiety of every parent to provide good education to the children and quite naturally, petitioner No.1 has got admission to her daughter in the said school. The said

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶48

school may be expensive school and in the admission form while admitting the daughter, petitioner No.1 has filled up the admission form by mentioning the annual income as Rs.72,000/-. It is the case of the petitioners that the same income is shown as income of her father. Just because, in the said admission form, petitioner No.1 has stated the annual income as Rs.72,000/- that does not mean that petitioner No.1 is an earning person. It is one of the erroneous observations of the Family Court assuming itself on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Further, even though, the respondent-husband has obtained decree of restitution of conjugal rights and wife did not join with her husband, in this regard, the Family Court has committed error in denying maintenance to the wife. The Family Court has granted maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the second petitioner- daughter.

¶49

Upon considering the evidence on record regarding the financial status of the respondent-husband,

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶51

it is proved from the evidence on record that the respondent is the owner of petrol bunk at Magadi, but the Family Court has erroneously observed that the respondent has suffered loss in the said petrol bunk business and there is no evidence from the respondent that he has suffered loss in the said business of petrol bunk. Admittedly, it is proved that the respondenthusband is doing petrol bunk business and it is proved that the respondent-husband is having sufficient income to provide maintenance to the wife and child. Further the respondent-husband who is examined as R.W.1 while giving his evidence admitted that he is also practicing astrology for about 4 to 5 years. The respondent apart from owner of petrol bunk, he is practicing astrology and from this also, the respondent is earning income. With this being the evidence on record, the observation of the Family Court in denying maintenance amount to the wife and granting only meagre amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-daughter is not correct, which needs interference of this Court.

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶53

10 -

¶54

Therefore, for the reasons discussed

¶55

above, the petitioners have proved the financial capability of the respondent and therefore, petitioner No.1-wife is entitled for maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- per month from the respondent and also petitioner No.2-daughter is entitled for maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month including what has been granted by the Family Court on every month till her marriage.

¶56

It is the obligation on the part of petitioner No.1 to perform daughter’s marriage. Therefore, petitioner No.1-wife is having responsibility to maintain herself and daughter and also to provide education to the daughter and perform her marriage after attaining the age of majority till then the respondent-husband has to look after his daughter.

¶57

Therefore, for these reasons, the above said maintenance amount is granted to petitioner No.1wife and petitioner No.2-daughter. Therefore, the

¶58

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶59

respondent-husband is directed to provide maintenance amount as observed above for every month without fail. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be allowed in part.

¶60

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶61

following

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶64

ii. The impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.115/2012 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court at Shivamogga is set aside insofar as rejecting the petition filed by petitioner No.1-wife for grant of maintenance amount and modified to the extent of awarding maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife from the date of petition till lifetime or her re-marriage.

¶65

12 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:3591 RPFC No. 11 of 2019

¶67

iii. Petitioner No.2-daughter is awarded enhanced maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition till her marriage.

¶68

iv. The respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance amount for every month without fail.

¶69

v. No order as to cost.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt Sowmya @ Sowmya Karanth v. H S Raghavendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sowmya @ Sowmya Karanth v. H S Raghavendra

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

B.T.Puttappa Vs B.C.Anurupa

Sri C Ningaraju Vs Smt G Roopa

Smt Nanjamma Vs Smt Rathnamma

Shri Preetesh Prasad T S Vs Smt. Rashmi P

Venkatesh Naik @ Venkatesh Vs Shobha

The Commissioner Vs Sri B Suresh Rao