Dismissed

Smt. Sujatha Shanthakumar, v. Sri Ananthashayanam Thiru Murthy

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024RPFC/150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka examined a revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded to a wife. The Court found the trial Court's assessment of ₹25,000 per month legally sound, noting the husband had already paid ₹15,000 voluntarily and rejecting claims that his remaining disposable income was insufficient given disputed expenditure figures.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed for enhancement of maintenance was dismissed, and all interim applications in the petition were closed.

Smt. Sujatha Shanthakumar, Vs Sri Ananthashayanam… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30982 RPFC No. 150 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 150 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUJATHA SHANTHAKUMAR, W/O SRI. ANANTHASHAYANAM THIRU MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A DOOR NO.356, 2^ND MAIN ROAD 2^ND STAGE, GOKULAM MYSURU-570 002

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. ANANTHASHAYANAM THIRU MURTHY, S/O SRI. THIRU ANANTHASHAYANAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A DOOR NO.43/353, VADAKKANTHARA ROAD PALAKKAD DISTRICT KERALA-678 012 PRESENLTY WORKING AT ZF ASIA PACIFIC PVT. LTD., 11 TUAS DRIVE I, SINGAPORE-638 678

¶15

(BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 27.04.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.639/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 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:30982 RPFC No. 150 of 2023

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.639/2022 dated 27.04.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/per month from the date of petition till her life time. The husband was directed to pay the future maintenance as and when it becomes due to the wife. The litigation expenses fixed at Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the wife by the husband. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/wife is before this Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance.

¶24

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶25

In view of the disputes between the parties right from the year 2008, the parties are staying separately. In the year 2009, the wife had filed M.C.No.271/2009 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same came to be allowed on 30.03.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the husband had preferred

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30982 RPFC No. 150 of 2023

¶27

MFA.No.6048/2013 before this Court and this Court had permitted the husband to move an appropriate application seeking divorce. Thereafter, he had filed M.C.No.679/2021 seeking divorce. The trial Court by judgment dated 20.01.2022 had granted divorce and the wife had carried the matter before this Court by filing MFA.No.2179/2022. This Court had granted stay and the matter is pending consideration before this Court. There after M.C.No.679/2021 filed for divorce is allowed. The wife had filed this petition i.e., Crl.Misc.No.639/2022 seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It is the case of the wife that the husband is working in Singapore and drawing handsome salary. In spite of that, he failed to maintain the wife and without any reasonable cause, he had deserted her. According to the wife, the income of the husband is an amount of Rs.7,88,133/-.

¶28

The husband had filed his statement of assets and liabilities and also his objections. It is stated that after paying taxes and taking care of the rental accommodation, he is left with is an amount of Rs.44,000/-. It is his case that the wife had never asked for maintenance right from the year 2009 till the year 2022 it shows that with an intention to harass the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30982 RPFC No. 150 of 2023

¶30

husband, she has come up with this application and it is a vexatious litigation. It is his case that the wife is a graduate and she was also working as a fashion designer and the fact that why she is not working and why she is not able to earn were not stated and it is his case that the wife is not entitled for maintenance.

¶31

Considering all these aspects and also the fact that without there being an order from the Court, the husband has been paying an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the wife from the date of filing of the petition itself, the trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife. Aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that when the husband is earning lakhs of rupees in Singapore, the trial Court had granted only maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife, when she had sought for maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The trial Court had failed to consider the income of the husband and all the expenditure that is stated by him cannot be believed and for an amount of Rs.44,000/- nobody would

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30982 RPFC No. 150 of 2023

¶34

work in Singapore. He submits the wife's appeal before this court is pending and pending consideration of the same, she requires money to take care of her basic necessities and an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month is not sufficient to maintain herself. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the wife submits that she is in the fond hope that the husband would take her back and she wants to join the husband.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that absolutely there is no scope for settlement and the husband is not interested to take her back. It is submitted that in view of the recession, there is a likelihood that the husband may lose his job. Further, he is 52 years old. It is submitted that he will not be in a position to pay more than the maintenance amount that is granted by the trial Court. It is submitted that the trial Court has considered all the aspects and granted the maintenance and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the well considered order passed by the trial Court.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, both the

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30982 RPFC No. 150 of 2023

¶38

parties are educated. The wife is a fashion designer and even after the marriage she was working. The husband is working in Singapore. The disputes have started between the parties from

¶39

the year 2008 and the proceedings are first initiated in the year 2009. The parties are living separately from the year 2009. Right from the year 2008 till the year 2022, the husband had not paid any maintenance to the wife and at any point of time, she has never sought for maintenance. It is the case of the wife that as she was seeking restitution of conjugal rights, she has not sought for any maintenance from the husband. When this Court on a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner being a qualified woman is not working, he submits that she is not able to secure any employment.

¶40

Considering the strained relations between the parties from the year 2008 and till the year 2022, no maintenance was asked and no maintenance was granted by the Court. Regarding the expenditure of the husband, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that those are all exaggerated figures that are placed before the Court. This Court cannot assume and presume things unless and until some material is

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:30982 RPFC No. 150 of 2023

¶43

placed before the Court that such figures placed by the husband are not correct.

¶44

Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance that is granted by the trial Court is perfectly legal and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed .

¶47

ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶49

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Smt. Sujatha Shanthakumar, v. Sri Ananthashayanam Thiru Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sujatha Shanthakumar, v. Sri Ananthashayanam Thiru Murthy

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 Syed Asad Ahmed Vs Sri B D Pattabhiraman

Mr S Vinod Martin Vs Mrs M Shalini

Sri. Swamy H.J., Vs Smt. Sanjana G L

Mr.Rushabh J Soni Vs Mrs.Depika Shekhawat

Smt Ashwini C Vs Sri Venkataravanappa v

Sri Naveen Prakash F Vs Smt Bharathi R