Partly allowed

U. v. Lakshmi @ Srilakshmi v M. Harish

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2024RPFC/115/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged the Family Court's rejection of her maintenance claim and sought enhancement for her minor daughter. The High Court found the husband in a better financial position and granted the wife Rs.6,000 per month from the date of petition till her lifetime, raising the daughter's maintenance to Rs.3,000 per month till marriage.

What did the court decide?

Wife granted Rs.6,000/month from date of petition till lifetime; daughter's maintenance enhanced to Rs.3,000/month till marriage; Family Court order modified; no costs.

U. v. Lakshmi @ Srilakshmi Vs M. Harish — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:1520 RPFC No. 115 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 115 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

U.V. LAKSHMI @ SRILAKSHMI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O M. HARISH,

¶8

GANAVI, D/O M. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER, BOTH ARE NOW R/AT BEHIND SHANKAR MUTT, B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 102.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

M. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAPPA GAJARE, R/AT "SWASTIK NILAYA", 9TH CROSS, ASHOKANAGAR, TUMAKURU - 572 102, WORKING AT ADONIX ELECTRONICS COMPANY, NO.488, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:1520 RPFC No. 115 of 2017

¶16

WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. NALINA K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2017., PASSED IN CIVIL.MIS.NO.440/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMKURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF THE CPC.PRAYING FOR MAINTAINANCE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This revision petition is filed by the wife challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.1 for maintenance and also for seeking enhancement of maintenance amount in so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned.

¶23

The relationship of the petitioners and respondent

¶24

herein are not disputed. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the respondent and the petitioner No.1 on certain allegation of harassment and cruelty are constrained to live separately from the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners have invoked under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance but the Family Court has rejected the

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1520 RPFC No. 115 of 2017

¶26

petition filed by the petitioner No.1 – wife and the petition filed by the petitioner No.2 – daughter is allowed-in-part granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of petition till the date of the passing of the order of the Family Court and Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of passing the order till her marriage. Being aggrieved by the above stated, the present petition is filed.

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent even though has produced diploma certificate and contended that the petitioner No.1 was working as a registered medical practitioner but it was only till 2016. Presently, the petitioner No.1 is unemployed and finds difficult to maintain herself and her daughter and hence, the petitioners do not have income to lead their life. Therefore, prays for granting maintenance amount to the wife and enhancement of maintenance amount to the petitioner No.2 – daughter.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

¶30

– husband submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a registered

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:1520 RPFC No. 115 of 2017

¶33

medical practitioner and also she is running a medical shop and has produced certificate issued by the Karnataka State Pharmacy Council. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 is financially stable to maintain herself and her daughter. He contends that the order passed by the Family Court is just and proper. He further submitted that the father of respondent is a cancer patient and due to which, the respondent has left job to look after his father and now he is unemployed. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

As discussed above, the relationship between the parties is not disputed. Ex.R.7 is the copy of the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner No.1 stating that she is running a medical shop. But the affidavit is of the year 2008, presently whether the petitioner No.1 is running the medical shop is not forthcoming in the evidence as stated by the respondent. Now, registered Medical Practitioner cannot practice medicine as per rules framed by the Government. The petitioner No.1 might have been practicing earlier but as on today i.e., as on the date of filing the petition, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner No.1 is RMP Doctor (Rural Medical Practitioner) and is also running a medical shop. The respondent – husband is

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1520 RPFC No. 115 of 2017

¶36

working as a Daily Wager at Adonis Electronic Pvt. Ltd., and is residing in his own house inherited by his father. Therefore, comparing to the petitioner No.1, the respondent is in better position in leading the life. Whereas, it is the responsibility of the petitioner No.1 to nurture and look after her minor daughter i.e., petitioner No.2. Therefore, upon considering all the evidence on record, the Family Court has committed an error in not granting maintenance amount to the petitioner No.1 and by granting meager maintenance amount to the petitioner No.2. Therefore, on these two grounds, the petition is liable to be allowed-in-part. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 – wife is granted maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of petition till her lifetime. Further, the Family Court has committed an error in bifurcating in granting the maintenance amount. Therefore, it is ordered that petitioner No.2 is granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of petition till her marriage and shall continue to pay on every month to both the petitioners without fail. In terms of the above, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The petition is allowed-in-part.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:1520 RPFC No. 115 of 2017

¶40

ii. The order passed in C.Mis.No.440/2013 dated 14.02.2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner No.1 – wife is entitled to maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- from the date of petition till her lifetime and petitioner No.2 – daughter is entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from the date of petition till her marriage.

¶41

iii. No order as to costs.

¶42

iv. The respondent shall pay maintenance amount without fail as per order.

¶43

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2017 for direction does not survive for consideration and accordingly, is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK

U. v. Lakshmi @ Srilakshmi v M. Harish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U. v. Lakshmi @ Srilakshmi v M. Harish

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

Sri Anjum Pasha Vs Smt. Sara Jabeen

Mr Karthik M Vs Icici Lombard General Inc,Co.,Ltd

M Ravikumar Vs Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Abdul Mujeeb Vs Aafreen Taj

Smt Sannamma Vs Smt Jayasheelamma

Smt Janakamma Vs Sri Javarappa