Partly allowed

Sri Madhu v. Smt Janaki @ Parvathi

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2024RPFC/70/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against Family Court order granting maintenance to wife and daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Court confirmed Rs.5,000 per month to wife but restricted daughter's maintenance to her date of majority, holding a major daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125.

What did the court decide?

Wife's maintenance of Rs.5,000/month confirmed; daughter's maintenance modified to run only until she attained age of majority.

Sri Madhu Vs Smt Janaki @ Parvathi — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 70 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI MADHU, S/O LATE MADANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 818, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, NAGARAHOLE NAGAR, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, MAHADESWARA NAGARA, HEROHALLY CROSS, BENGALURU 560 091.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

[BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . SMT. JANAKI @ PARVATHI, W/O MADHU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶11

2 . KUMARI MADHURI, D/O MADHU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶12

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

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 231, C/O. SUNDANDA DEVI, MANJUNATHA NILAYA, CHOWDESWARI LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560 064.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

[BY SRI K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH)]

¶16

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO.110/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging order dated 12.11.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.no.110/2013 filed under Section 125 for Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (' Cr.P.C ' for short), this petition is filed.

¶23

Sri Sridhara K., learned counsel for petitioner submitted, marriage of petitioner and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 09.05.1993 and from wedlock they begot Chetan on 20.10.1994 and Madhuri (respondent no.2) on 16.02.1998. It was submitted Chetan was in custody of petitioner. It was submitted, from date of marriage, respondent no.1 was quarrelsome with petitioner and his mother without any reason. She was in habit of visiting her parents house frequently, without informing petitioner. Though petitioner always took care and maintained family, respondent no.1 failed to be dutiful wife and mother for children. She deserted petitioner without justification in year 2011 and filed false complaint against him. Therefore, respondent no.1 was disentitled for maintenance.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶26

It was submitted despite making assertions about petitioner's income, she failed to produce any material. Ex-R2 income certificate issued by Revenue Department would indicate income of Rs.11,000/- per annum. Even taking his income as Rs.450/- per day, quantum of maintenance passed by Family Court was without proper appreciation.

¶27

It was submitted fact that parents of respondent no.1 were well settled was suppressed. Further, this Court on 08.09.2021, directed both parties to file affidavit of their assets and liabilities. In affidavit filed, petitioner had disclosed about income of respondent no.1 from various sources. Hence, petition was liable to be rejected.

¶28

It was further submitted, respondent no.2 had attained age of majority, completed M.B.B.S. Course, in year 2020 and getting remuneration and provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would not permit order for maintenance to daughter who had attained age of majority. Under these facts impugned order was unsustainable and sought interference.

¶29

On other hand, Sri R.Nagaraja, learned counsel for respondents sought to support impugned order. It was submitted there was no dispute about marriage and birth of

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶32

children. It was submitted, though respondent no.1 was taking care of household, mother-in-law used to quarrel and harass her for dowry. Even during her pregnancy, she was harassed, forcing her to stay with parents, though she intended to reside in marital home. It was submitted petitioner was having bad vices including illegal affairs and had also threatened her. All settlements were rendered unsuccessful due to petitioner's attitude. In fact, petitioner had filed M.C.no.1578/2012 for divorce on ground of desertion and during it's pendency, application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed and same was allowed as per Ex.P.19, thereafter said petition was dismissed for non-payment of interim maintenance. Said fact would establish failure and neglect by petitioner in maintaining respondents, despite having sufficient income.

¶33

Though, petitioner sought to rely on Exs.R1 and R2 - caste and income certificates to contend that family income of respondent no.2 was certified as Rs.11,000/- p.a., respondents had specifically disputed said fact. Respondent no.1 had specifically stated about petitioner earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month from contract work and also owned agricultural land. In corroboration, she had produced Ex.P15 - invitation card of

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶36

house warming ceremony of three floor building, which established high living standards. It was submitted petitioner admitted in cross-examination that his sister was an advocate, based on her instructions petitioner had suppressed his income and also immovable properties only to avoid maintenance.

¶37

It was submitted, fact that petitioner admitted not knowing whether respondent no.2 was studying MBBS, established neglect. He also admitted not making any attempts to know about respondents or about paying maintenance or educational expenses of daughter. Said facts establish neglect and failure on his part.

¶38

It was submitted, while passing impugned order, Family Court had considered entire material and after due appreciation passed impugned order and same did not call for interference. On said grounds sought for dismissal.

¶39

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.

¶40

Thus, petitioner's challenge is only on quantum of maintenance. Hence, point that arises for consideration is:

¶41

"Whether impugned order calls for interference?"

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶44

From above, there is no dispute about marriage between petitioner and respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 born to them. In application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., respondents claimed monthly maintenance at rate of Rs.25,000/-. In order to establish their claim for same, they would be required to prove income of petitioner and/or standard of life in his house. In this regard respondents have pleaded that petitioner was working as contractor and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. They also stated that he was having agricultural lands, house property and owned a car. They have also produced account extract as Ex.P.20 and Pan card as Ex.P.22.

¶45

However, petitioner has sought to rely on Caste and Income Certificate of respondent no.2 marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2, wherein total annual income of family of respondent is certified as Rs.11,000/-. But, while passing impugned order, Family Court has taken note of fact that in M.C.no1578/2012 filed by petitioner, an application was filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and by order dated 14.12.2012, petitioner was directed to pay amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. It also took note of fact that in proceedings pending before it, petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance at

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶48

Rs.2,500/- for wife and Rs.1,500/- for daughter, which was paid. On basis of above, Family Court deduced paying capacity of petitioner. Thereafter referring to petitioner's pleading in para no.11 of his objections statement, that he had lent Rs.3,00,000/- to brother of respondent no.1, to conclude financial capacity of respondent.

¶49

As held in Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, for assessment of husband's income to determine maintenance, some reasonable guess work would be permissible. Therefore, when assessment is based on some material on record, for awarding Rs.5,000/- to wife and Rs.3,000/- to daughter which are bare minimum for survival, they cannot be stated to be either contrary to material on record or without any basis.

¶50

However, Family Court has ordered payment of maintenance to respondent no.2 from date of petition till she completes her education and begins earning independently or gets married, which would be contrary to second proviso to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Explanation (a) thereof. As per Ex.P.13, her date of birth is 16.02.1998, she attained age of majority on 15.02.2016. In Abhilasha v. Parkash, reported in

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:29631 RPFC No. 70 of 2020

¶53

(2021) 13 SCC 99 , it is held daughter who as attained age of majority is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and same can be claimed till her marriage under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. Therefore, impugned order to said extent would call for interference. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. Revision Petition is allowed in part .

¶56

ii. Challenge insofar as direction to pay maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 is confirmed.

¶57

iii. Direction to pay monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 daughter at Rs.5,000/till she completes her education, begins earning or till her marriage is modified and restricted upto to the date on which she attains age of majority.

¶58

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶59

PSG/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri Madhu v. Smt Janaki @ Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madhu v. Smt Janaki @ Parvathi

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

Sri K Gangappa Vs Sri Muthappa

Mayappa Vs Krishnegowda

Sri. Seenappa H M Vs Sri Muniswamappa

Smt Savithramma Vs Sri H v Srirangaraju

Sri. Vishwanatha Vs Smt. Jayamma

S a Imthiyaz Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer