Dismissed

Sri Girish D S v. Smt Thejaswini K G

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2024RPFC/3/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged a Family Court order granting his estranged wife monthly maintenance, alleging she had independent means and that Rajnesh v. Neha asset-disclosure directions were not followed. The High Court condoned the delay, upheld the finding of neglect and sufficiency of husband's income, and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Girish D S Vs Smt Thejaswini K G — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶6

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 3 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GIRISH D.S., S/O D.P. SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 111.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BHOJARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. BHAGEERATHI L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. THEJASWINI K.G., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, W/O GIRISH D.S., D/O MARULASIDDMMA, R/AT "SANKALPA NILAYA", BHEEMASANDRA, S.S.M.C. POST, BELLAVI ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN – 572 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2021

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶19

PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO.40/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenging order dated 15.07.2021 passed by I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru, in Crl.Mis.no.40/2020, this petition is filed.

¶23

As there is delay of 203 days in filing petition, I.A.no.1/2023 is filed for its condonation.

¶24

Sri Bhojaraja, learned counsel for Smt.Bhageerathi L., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision is filed against order passed by Family Court directing petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to respondent from date of order and from date of petition till then at Rs.4,000/-. It was submitted, order was passed on 15.07.2021 during Covid-19 pandemic and as petitioner was suffering from ill-health, and unable to furnish necessary documents in time, delay has accrued. It is also stated, during said period, he sustained loss

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶27

due to flooding of his lands etc. Though respondent has filed objections to application, in view of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application no.21/2022 in

¶28

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3/2020 and notification issued by this Court, since impugned order was passed during Covid-19 pandemic, it would be appropriate to condone delay.

¶29

Insofar as main matter, grounds urged in petition are that respondent did not lead happy marital life with petitioner and was residing with her parents and did not return despite efforts through well-wishers, friends etc. She also filed false complaint against petitioner and his family members and petition for divorce was pending.

¶30

Insofar as quantum of maintenance, challenge is on ground that mother of respondent was Government employee earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month and holding agricultural lands with more than 500 coconut trees. Therefore, respondent was not in need of maintenance. It is also contended that photographs of agricultural lands and vehicles standing in name of petitioner were concocted. Further, Family Court erred in not following directions issued by Hon'ble Apex

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶33

Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 569.

¶34

Insofar as petitioner's income, it is contended, as per notification issued under provisions of Minimum Wages Act, income of agricultural labour was Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, award of Rs.7,500/- as maintenance would be 50% of same and thus excessive. It is contended, petitioner was required to take care of his old aged parents, which was not considered by Family Court.

¶35

Heard learned counsel.

¶36

Perusal of impugned order would indicate that marriage between petitioner and respondent on 14.12.2017 at Siddaganga Mutt at Tumakuru as per Hindu Customs is not in dispute. It is stated that parties led happy marital life for period of 9 months. Subsequently respondent-wife alleged that she was sustaining ill-treatment and by demanding dowry, she was driven her to parents' house. She alleges about demand for taking loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from her mother's salary, to provide house in Tumakur, to purchase car etc. Thereafter, she began to reside with her parents. Though, it is stated that

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶39

Crime no.143/2019 was registered under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, same was on false allegations. Petitioner had also filed petition for divorce before Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala.

¶40

Insofar as finding on 'whether there was failure and neglect on part of petitioner to maintain respondent and regarding quantum of monthly income', learned Family Judge referred to pleadings. Taking note of fact that there was complaint by respondent against petitioner and his family members and there was a petition for divorce filed against her, it recorded that respondent was justified in residing separately from petitioner.

¶41

Since, respondent was not working, though her mother was Government employee and holding lands etc. same would not have bearing on her dependency. Petitioner as husband would be required to maintain his wife. As no provision was made by respondent for maintenance, same would constitute failure and neglect on part of petitioner to maintain wife.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶44

Learned Family Judge also referred to deposition of both parties. Respondent deposed that during her stay with petitioner, his parents started abusing and assaulting her with demand for dowry. A criminal case was lodged against them.

¶45

Insofar as income, she stated that petitioner was having land wherein he was growing flowers, fruits, vegetables in a polyhouse. He was also growing commercial crops i.e. arecanut, coconut and banana and having income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She specifically stated that petitioner owned a Polo Car and Tata Zip commercial vehicle. She also produced receipts for supply of cucumber by petitioner to Rudreshwara Traders at Yashwantpura, Bengaluru.

¶46

In his cross-examination, petitioner admitted that 4 acres of land in Sy.no.164/14 was standing in name of his father, wherein coconut and arecanut were grown. Though he denied suggestion that in said land there were 1500 arecanut trees, he admitted growing coconut and Banana plants. He also admitted owning Polo car and Tata Zip vehicle.

¶47

Based on said material, Family Court held that despite having sufficient income, petitioner had refused and

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶50

failed to maintain respondent. Taking into consideration that petitioner is doing agricultural and had to maintain parents, brothers and sisters, it fixed monthly maintenance at Rs.7,500/-. Admittedly, Rs.7,500/- would be bare minimum for sustenance.

¶51

Though a contention is urged that there was noncompliance with procedure of requiring parties to file affidavit of their Assets and Liabilities, petitioner himself was at fault for not having filed same either before Family Court or before this Court. One cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own fault as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyla Mutyalamma Alias Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and Another reported in 2011 (12) SCC 189 , scope for interference would an order passed under Section 125 Cr.PC would be only in case of material irregularities. No such case is made out. Conclusion arrived at by Family Court is based on material facts. Hence, I do not find any merit in petition.

¶52

Petition stands dismissed.

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:28463 RPFC No. 3 of 2023

¶54

¶55

However, dismissal shall not come in way of petitioner seeking for settlement with respondent in pending divorce proceedings.

¶56

In view of dismissal of petition, pending applications

¶57

stands disposed of accordingly.

¶58