Allowed

Smt Nirmala Bai v. Shri Chandu Rao

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024RPFC/141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C.; Family Court enhanced it from Rs.2,500 to Rs.5,000 per month. The High Court allowed her revision and further enhanced maintenance to Rs.15,000 per month based on the respondent's net salary of Rs.62,697 and rising cost of living.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced from Rs.2,500 to Rs.15,000 p.m from date of petition; respondent to pay Rs.2,000 towards cost of revision petition.

Smt Nirmala Bai Vs Shri Chandu Rao — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 141 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NIRMALA BAI W/O SRI CHANDU RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT D 117, EWS HANDICAPPED COLONY BADE MAKAN, N R MOHALLA MYSORE TOWN - 570 009

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GURUDATH B S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHRI CHANDU RAO S/O VIJAYANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS RESERVE POLICE ARSI, CAR MYSORE R/AT DOOR NO.8, BANDRA BLOCK JYOTHI NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 019

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶16

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 PASSED IN C.MISC.No.53/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 127(1) OF Cr.P.C. FOR ENHANCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This RPFC is filed challenging the order dated 10.08.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.53/2019 by the IV Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru.

¶22

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

¶23

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent

¶24

took place about 13 years back, and they have led a happy married life. They have no issues. The respondent deserted the petitioner without any valid reason. The petitioner is working in a reserve police and has a sufficient source of income. Despite of this, the respondent failed to maintain the petitioner. The respondent did not

¶25

pay the petitioner for maintenance. The petitioner approached the Family Court, Mysuru and filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010. The said petition was allowed, and

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶27

the respondent was directed to pay a maintenance amount

¶28

of Rs.5,500/- p.m. to the petitioner. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. to enhance the maintenance amount. It is contended that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is not sufficient to maintain the petitioner as she is suffering from old age ailments and requires regular medication. Hence, she sought for enhancement.

¶29

The respondent filed an objection to the petition, contending that the petition is not maintainable. The respondent has denied that the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent, and it is contended that the respondent is married to one Smt.Pushpabai and they have two sons out of their wedlock, and it is contended that the petitioner is the wife of Madhav Rao, and the petitioner has two sons through Madhav Rao. After the death of Madhav Rao, the petitioner was residing in a Muslim area within the jurisdiction of N.R.Mohalla

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶31

police station. During that time, the respondent was working at N.R.Mohalla police station and attending duty in the N.R.Mohalla police station area where the petitioner was residing. It is contended that the petitioner filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P.C in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010.

¶32

The respondent did not participate in the said

¶33

proceedings, and the petition was allowed, which was exparte. The respondent did not participate due to work pressure. It is contended that the respondent is working as Reserve Police as ARSI and getting a salary of Rs.41,603/- p.m. Hence, maintenance claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶34

To prove her case, the petitioner examined

¶35

herself as PW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to 13. The respondent examined himself as RW.1, and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to 14. The Family Court, after recording the evidence and on the assessment of oral

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶37

and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part and the maintenance awarded by the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010 on the file of Family Court, Mysuru is enhanced from Rs.2,500/- p.m to Rs.5,000/- p.m from the date of the petition. The respondent was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m, towards maintenance from the date of the petition and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the petition. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, has filed this revision petition seeking enhancement.

¶38

Notice was issued to the respondent, but the

¶39

respondent remained unrepresented despite the service of notice.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶42

the Family Court committed an error in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- p.m to Rs.5,000/p.m. The said amount awarded by the Family Court is on

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶44

the lower side. It is contended that the petitioner is drawing a net salary of Rs.62,697/-, and has produced a salary certificate for August 2024. Hence, he prays to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- p.m to Rs.20,000/-p.m.

¶45

Perused the records and considered the

¶46

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶47

The petitioner claims to be the respondent's wife, and their marriage was solemnized according to the customs prevailing in their community. It is contended that the petitioner had led a happy married life with the respondent, and after that, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent has driven the petitioner from the matrimonial house, and the petitioner is residing separately. Their matrimonial relationship is not cordial. The respondent has not provided any maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr. P.C seeking for maintenance in

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶49

Crl.Misc.No.79/2010. The petition was allowed by the Family Court, which granted a maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/-. The maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is on the lower side. The petitioner filed an application to the petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C seeking for enhancement of maintenance amount. When filing the petition, the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner has also produced a salary certificate of the respondent marked as Exs.P10 and 11. In rebuttal, the respondent examined himself as RW.1, reiterated the statement of objections in the examinationin-chief, and produced Aadhaar cards marked as Exs.R1 to 4. Though the respondent has taken a defence that the petitioner is not a wife and she has married one Madhav Rao and has two children, to substantiate his defence, the respondent has not produced any records to establish that the petitioner married Madhav Rao and has two children.

¶50

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010. The

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶52

said petition was allowed, and after that, the respondent started paying the maintenance amount as ordered in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010, and the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010 has attained finality. By going through the salary certificate for August 2024, the respondent is drawing a net salary of Rs.62,697/-. In view of change of circumstances due to steep rise in price of the essential commodities and increasing cost of living, the petitioner has made out a ground to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- p.m to Rs.15,000/p.m.

¶53

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.08.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.53/2019 is modified.

¶56

The maintenance amount awarded to the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010 on the file of Family Court, Mysuru, is enhanced from

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:43209 RPFC No. 141 of 2021

¶59

Rs.2,500/- p.m to Rs.15,000/- p.m, from the date of petition.

¶60

The respondent shall pay Rs.15,000/- p.m, to the petitioner towards maintenance from the date of petition i.e., in Crl.Misc.No.53/2019 and further, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of this revision petition.

¶61

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶62

SKS

Smt Nirmala Bai v. Shri Chandu Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nirmala Bai v. Shri Chandu Rao

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

Mr. Saurbah Saksena Vs Mrs. Prabhjeet Kaur

Smt Sakamma Since Dead by Her Lrs Vs Dr Sowmya

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Prem Shoes Pvt. Ltd.

B G Mahesh Vs Smt Anitha

Pranab Kumar Dutta Vs Jaba Roy

Smt Nagamani @ Mamatha Vs Sri Shivaprakash