Partly allowed

Radhamani v. B. Manjunath

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2024RPFC/39/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the monthly maintenance granted to the wife and minor son. Modifying the previous order, the court added Rs. 2,000/- for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for the son, considering the respondent's financial capabilities.

What did the court decide?

Additional monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- for the petitioner wife and Rs. 1,000/- for the minor son from the date of the petition.

Radhamani Vs B. Manjunath — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:210 RPFC No. 39 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 39 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RADHAMANI, WIFE OF B. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶8

BHASKAR,

¶9

SON OF B. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS.

¶10

PETITIONER NO. 2 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN-1^ST PETITIONER.

¶11

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT AVALIPALYA, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA - 572 101.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

B. MANJUNATH, SON OF BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING IN FITWELL FACTORY, INDUSTRIAL AREA,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:210 RPFC No. 39 of 2017

¶18

ANTHARASANAHALLI, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶19

AND RESIDING AT YALLAPURA, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA - 572 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2016 PASSED IN C.MIS 47/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petition is filed by the wife and son for seeking enhancement of maintenance amount. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioner No.2 is the minor son of the respondent. The relationship between the parties is not disputed as they are husband, wife and child. The Family Court has granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 – wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 – son.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:210 RPFC No. 39 of 2017

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amount granted by the Family Court is not sufficient to lead the life in Tumakuru City. Hence, prays for enhancement of maintenance amount.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent – husband submitted that the respondent has to look after his old aged parents and sister-in-law and there are huge members in the family. He further contends that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is just and appropriate. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has resigned his job at Fit Well Factory, Tumakuru due to ill-health and presently working as a Daily Wager and has spent huge sum towards medical treatment. At the same time, maintaining life at Tumakuru City by mother and child with maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/-, awarded by the Family Court is not sufficient even though the petitioner No.1 may be working in a Factory as per submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and it is also admitted that the respondent is receiving rent and is having sites, the respondent

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:210 RPFC No. 39 of 2017

¶31

is relieved from financial burden. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the respondent has resigned from his service and is presently working as a Daily Wager to earn his livelihood. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the petitioners, who are wife and son of the respondent are entitled for enhancement of maintenance amount. It is just and appropriate to enhance maintenance amount. Hence, the following:-

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. The petition is allowed-in-part.

¶34

ii. The order passed in C.Mis.No.47/2014 dated 27.08.2016 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner No.1 – wife is entitled to additional maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- and petitioner No.2 – son is entitled to additional maintenance of Rs.1,000/-, in addition to what has been granted by the Family Court respectively from the date of petition.

¶35

iii. No order as to costs.

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:210 RPFC No. 39 of 2017

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:SNN

Radhamani v. B. Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamani v. B. Manjunath

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 v Ramanandan Vs Sri v G Megharaj

Sri Ningegowda Vs Sri Kehsavegowda

Sri Manjunath Hegde Vs Smt Rajeshwari

Srinivasachari Vs Mr. Ravi

Lokesh @ Siddaramu Vs Sushma

Sri. B. v. Lakshminarayana Vs Smt. Rassol Bi