Partly allowed

Smt. Jyothi.K.B v. Sri. Sathisha

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024RPFC/170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges the quantum of maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court found the Family Court erroneously relied on interim amounts. Applying the 1/3rd and 1/5th rule on the husband's inferred income, the court enhanced maintenance to Rs.15,000 for each petitioner. Petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; monthly maintenance enhanced to Rs.15,000 for each of the petitioners.

Smt. Jyothi.K.B Vs Sri. Sathisha — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:26261 RPFC No. 170 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶6

R.P. F. C NO. 170 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JYOTHI K.B.,W/O SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶9

SANVIKA, D/O SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 1813/1B, 2^ND CROSS, HULLINA BEEDI, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU- 570 004.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

[BY SRI RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. SATHISHA S/O LATE NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.117, 1^ST CROSS, NAVEELU ROAD, JANATHA COLONY, KUVEMPUNAGAR, GUNDLUPET TOWN, GUNDLUPET, CHAMARAJANAGARA- 571 111, KARNATAKA.

¶16

ANOTHER ADDRESS: HOUSE NO.15, 1^ST LINE, K.E.B. QUARTERS, JYOTHI NAGAR, MYSURU.

¶17

OFFICE ADDRESS: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND JYOTHINAGARA SUB-DIVISION, CHA.V.Na.Ne.Ne. MYSURU, JYOTHINAGARA SUB DIVISION, N.R.MOHALLA DIVISION, MYSURU.

¶18

…RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS H/S V/O DATED 15.04.2024)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:26261 RPFC No. 170 of 2023

¶21

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2023 IN CRL.MISC NO.243/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Challenging order dated 26.04.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore, in Crl.Misc.no.243/2020 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance, this petition is filed.

¶25

Sri Ravishankar S., learned counsel for petitioners submitted marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent was solemnized on 13.11.2005 at Anandappa Choultry, Gundlupete. Thereafter, they resided together and begot a daughter who is petitioner no.2. But, after two years of marriage, respondent and his parents began harassing her for dowry and ill-treated her, forcing her to go to her maternal home. It was submitted, respondent was government employee earning Rs.90,000/- per month, apart from Rs.15,00,000/- per annum from landed property. He was also stated to be earning Rs.50,000/- per month from Car Rental.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:26261 RPFC No. 170 of 2023

¶28

It was submitted, admission by respondent in cross-examination Ex.R.2-Loan Account Statement was towards furniture, established he was leading luxurious life and incurred loans with intention to avoid maintenance. It was submitted, Family Court had failed to take note of above circumstances and granted meager maintenance. Hence, for enhancement.

¶29

Respondent is served, unrepresented.

¶30

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order

¶31

and records.

¶32

From above, since petitioners are wife and daughter

¶33

are seeking for enhancement of maintenance, point that would arise for consideration is:

¶34

"Whether maintenance ordered calls for modification?"

¶35

From above, it is seen that marriage of petitioner no.1 with respondent is not in dispute. Birth of petitioner no.2 from wedlock is also not in dispute. Since respondent has not challenged order of Family Court granting maintenance to petitioners, and petitioners have filed revision on quantum, this Court need not labour on issue about their entitlement for maintenance.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:26261 RPFC No. 170 of 2023

¶38

On quantum, RW-1 stated that he was working in Karnataka Electricity Board. He admitted his salary as on December, 2022 was Rs.62,000/- and owning a house and other landed properties. Despite, assertion by petitioners that he was earning more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month, denial was only in respect of income from car rental. Such being case, for fixing monthly maintenance, Family Court erroneously referred to interim maintenance ordered at Rs.6,000/- to petitioner and Rs.4,000/- to petitioner no.2. On said reasoning, it determined maintenance by adding Rs.1,000/- to interim maintenance. It is settled law that amount of maintenance would be with reference to status and lifestyle.

¶39

Insofar as quantum of maintenance is concerned, High Court of Allahabad in Veena Panda alias Seema Panda

¶40

v. Devendra Kumar Panda¹ , High Court of Gujarat in Ashokkumar Kantilal Rathod v. Bhavnaben Ashokkumar Rathod² have held normal rule for awarding maintenance in case of wife would be 1/3^rd of net income of husband and in case of a child, it could be taken as 1/5^th .

¶41

1 2006 SCC OnLine All 332

¶42

2 1999 SCC OnLine Guj 342

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:26261 RPFC No. 170 of 2023

¶45

In instant case, petitioners have asserted that respondent was having monthly income of more than Rs.2,00,000/-. Though, same is not substantiated with material, denial by respondent is only in respect of income from Car rental. Taking note of fact that respondent has taken furniture loan of more than Rs.3,00,000/-, it can be safely assumed that his monthly earning is around Rs.75,000/-.

¶46

1/3^rd of it would be Rs.22,500/- in case of petitioner no.1. Likewise, 1/5^th of it would be Rs.15,000/-. Since, respondent would require to provide for his old-aged mother, some moderation would require to be applied. Under above facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to order respondent to pay Rs.15,000/- to each of petitioners. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.

¶47

Consequently, petition is allowed in part. Impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore, in Crl.Misc.no.243/2020 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is modified. Monthly maintenance is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- to each of petitioners.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Psg

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Smt. Jyothi.K.B v. Sri. Sathisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyothi.K.B v. Sri. Sathisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Puttarajamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Mala M Vs Sri Jagadeesh

Tirumalegowda Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Sri. Chinnappa Vs Sri Krishnappa

Sri Fani Kiran @ Kiran Shasthri, Vs Smt. Suprabha B.C.

Sri C Sathish Kumar Vs Smt Gopamma