Dismissed

Sri Sandeep B v. Smt Anupallavi a

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024RPFC/56/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged Family Court order awarding Rs.6,000 monthly maintenance each to wife and daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., arguing his income was low and he had parents to maintain. Court held failure to produce salary slips and disclose other income justified adverse inference; quantum was adequate for survival.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Sandeep B Vs Smt Anupallavi a — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:24726 RPFC No. 56 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶6

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 56 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SANDEEP B S/O BASAWARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.326/2, YERAGANAHALLI MYSURU-570010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. ANUPALLAVI A., W/O SANDEEP B, D/O ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A DOOR NO.12, KBL LAYOUT, BEHIND GENIUS COLLEGE, MYSURU-570 028.

¶13

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

¶14

KUM. HARSHITHA S., D/O SANDEEP B., AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, R/A DOOR NO.12, KBL LAYOUT, BEHIND GENIUS COLLEGE, MYSURU-570 028.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO. 350/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:24726 RPFC No. 56 of 2020

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenging order dated 04.12.2019 passed by IV Addl. Principal Family Court Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.no.350/2019 filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (' Cr.P.C ' for short), this petition is filed.

¶23

Sri K.R. Lingaraju, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is husband of respondent no.1 and their marriage was solmenised on 24.11.2013 at Channamma Channabasappa Kalyana Mantapa, Mysuru, as per Hindu Customs. Thereafter they resided together and from wedlock, respondent no.2 was born. Subsequently, without any reasons respondent no.1 left matrimonial home and started living separately and filed Crl.Misc.no.350/2019 claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

It was submitted, petitioner entered appearance and filed objections. Thereafter, respondent no.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 21, while in rebuttal, petitioner was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to 3.

¶25

On consideration, Family Court held respondents were unable to maintain themselves, petitioner had failed and

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24726 RPFC No. 56 of 2020

¶27

neglected to maintain them despite having sufficient means, therefore they were entitled for monthly maintenance quantified at Rs.6,000/- per month each from date of order. Aggrieved by same, petitioner filed this petition.

¶28

It was submitted, petitioner was working as clerk in MUDA on contract basis. Though he had produced Bank passbook to establish that his monthly income was Rs.6,000/-, Family Court failed to consider same. It was submitted, there was no dispute about petitioner having oldage parents whom he had to maintain. Said fact was not adverted by Family Court, and therefore, maintenance awarded was excessive and sought interference.

¶29

On other hand, Sri Murthy K., learned counsel for respondents sought to support impugned order. It was submitted, admittedly, petitioner was working in MUDA. He was also earning income from milk vending and owning landed properties. Having sufficient source of income, he had failed to maintain respondents. Respondent no.1 was not having any source of income, while respondent no.2 was a school going child. It was also submitted that amount determined was for bare survival and therefore, would not call for interference.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:24726 RPFC No. 56 of 2020

¶32

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned

¶33

order.

¶34

From above, it is seen that challenge against impugned order is only on quantum. Hence, only point for consideration would be:

¶35

"Whether order of monthly maintenance at Rs.6,000/- each to respondents calls for interference?"

¶36

In pleading as well as in deposition, respondents

¶37

have stated about employment of petitioner in MUDA, owning landed properties and also earning income milk vending. In cross-examination, respondent admitted his employment and deduction towards ESI, PF etc. Strangely, he failed to produce salary slips/certificate.

¶38

Ex.R.2 - bank statement would only show ‘take home salary’. It is settled that insofar as nature of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be summary and interference with orders can only be in case of order suffering from material irregularity, illegality error of jurisdiction etc. and whether impugned order passed was without any basis or conclusion arrived is perverse. Since petitioner failed to produce salary slip, and divulge complete details of milk business, land holdings and income there from, though same would have been

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24726 RPFC No. 56 of 2020

¶40

within his exclusive knowledge, adverse interference could be drawn.

¶41

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Garg & Anr. Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 , has held that it is duty of able-bodied man to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and children. Therefore, maintenance ordered should be sufficient for survival and cannot depend only on income. Thus, order of monthly maintenance at rate of Rs.6,000/- would not call for interference.

¶42

Point for consideration is answered in negative, consequently, petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

GRD

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sri Sandeep B v. Smt Anupallavi a

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Sandeep B v. Smt Anupallavi a

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Ranganath Vs Sri N Jayaram

Eshwarappa Vs the Executive Engineer

Sri Suresh v Vs Sri N K Venkatesh Babu

Mr Ajit S Vs Sri Ganesha Fruit Juice Centre

Sri. Nagaprasad G. Mitta Vs Dr. Sheela J

Digambarappa Vs State of Karnataka