Remanded

Mr. Manoj v. Vs Mrs Nandana K

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2024WP/14568/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court set aside an interim maintenance order of Rs.8,000 per month granted by the Family Court. Citing Rajnesh, the Court found prima facie suppression of facts by both parties. It remanded the matter, directing the Family Court to consider fresh contentions, obtain updated accounts from the wife, and dispose of the application within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim maintenance order dated 04.03.2024 set aside and matter remanded to Family Court for fresh consideration with updated accounts.

Mr. Manoj v Vs Mrs Nandana K — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 14568 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 10177 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶10

IN W.P.No.14568/2024

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

MR. MANOJ V, S/O VENKATA REDDY C.R., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46/D, 1^ST FLOOR, 8^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJESH P., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

MRS. NANDANA K, D/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 8^TH CROSS, NEAR MATHRUSHREE SCHOOL, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, LAGGARE, BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 04.03.2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN MC NO.6198 OF 2022 VIDE ANNX-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶21

IN W.P.No.10177/2024

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SMT. NANDANA K, W/O MANOJ V., D/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 8^TH CROSS, NEAR MATHRUSHREE SCHOOL, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, LAGGARE, BENGALURU – 560 058. …PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. K.P.BHUVAN., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶25

SRI. MANOJ V, S/O VENKATA REDDY C.R., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46/D, 1^ST FLOOR, 8^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 060. (BY SRI. RAJESH PANDIAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN MC NO.6198/2022 ON IA NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE – K BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE – F.

¶29

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

¶30

COMMON ORDER

¶31

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2024 passed on IA No.3 in M.C.No.6198/2022, whereby the Court below had granted interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month, both the husband and the wife are before this Court.

¶32

The writ petition filed by the husband is numbered as W.P.No.14568/2024 and the writ petition filed by the wife is numbered as W.P.No.10177/2024. As such, both these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by way of common order.

¶33

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for

¶34

the sake of convenience.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶36

The wife has filed an application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.1,25,000/- per month, litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses by the husband. It is the case of the wife that the marriage was solemnized on 12.05.2022. As the husband deserted her, she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal right and the husband by way of a counter claim, had sought for divorce. The wife on 23.09.2023 has filed an application i.e., IA No.3 seeking maintenance.

¶37

It is the case of the husband that she is not entitled for maintenance as she is gainfully employed and she has filed false statement of assets and liabilities. It is stated that she has voluntarily left the matrimonial house. She is not suffering from any diseases. She has not produced any materials to show that she has spent Rs.3,00,000/- for medical treatment. She was admitted to hospital as she was attempted to commit suicide.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶39

and taking into consideration the documents that are placed before it, the Court below has observed that the affidavit of

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶41

assets and liabilities filed by the wife discloses that she is a B.E. Graduate, working as SAP Consultant at Capgeminy Technology Services and earning net salary of Rs.58,272/-. She had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- from HDFC bank and Rs.6,60,000/- from Yeshwanthpur Co-operative Society and she has to pay the EMI.

¶42

The affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent discloses that he has to maintain his parents and his salary is Rs.2,27,321/- per month and has borrowed construction loan from SBI as well as Solar Panels loan from private finance. He has been paying EMI of Rs.1,70,300/towards housing loan and Rs.45,041/- towards Solar Panel loan. The Court also observed that the wife has sought for medical expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent and it is her burden to prove that she has spent that amount towards medical expenses and the Court has felt that at this stage, it is not proper to direct the respondent to pay the alleged medical expenses. Accordingly, the Court held that as the income of the husband is morethan the earnings of the wife, it is the duty of the husband to provide maintenance to his legally wedded wife in accordance with his financial status

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶44

and thereby, granted Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Questioning the quantum of maintenance and seeking enhancement of the maintenance, both the husband and the wife are before this Court.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the husband has pointed out that the party who has come before the Court with suppression and misrepresentation of fact is not entitled for any relief from the Court. He submits that though the application seeking maintenance is filed on 23.09.2023, the bank statements of the wife are filed only from April 2021 till February 2023. She has failed to submit the bank statements from February 2023 to 23.09.2023. He further submits that for performing their marriage, she said to have borrowed loan of Rs.58,272/-, but no documents were placed before the Court. It is submitted that as of now, her salary is Rs.78,000/- per month and the said fact was not stated even before this Court when the present writ petition was filed in the year 2024. He submits that in the statement of assets and liabilities, it is stated that her liability is Rs.1,25,000/- per month, whereas in the writ petition filed by her, in the pleadings at para No.21, it

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶47

is stated that the liability is Rs.67,000/- per month. Even this statement also runs contrary. Further, at the time of filing the petition, she has stated that she is earning an amount of Rs.58,272/- per month. Now the salary would be hiked and she is presently drawing salary of Rs.78,000/- per month. It is submitted that she has also in her expenditure had shown Rs.25,000/- to be spent to her parents. It is submitted that the husband need not provide maintenance to her parents. It is further submitted that the marriage had taken place on 12.05.2022 and she stayed with her husband till 07.08.2022 and later, she left the matrimonial house. He submits that when she is capable of earning which is evident from the documents produced by her, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

¶48

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court, arising out of MAT.APP.(F.C.)248/2019 and CM Appl.20720/2022, wherein the Court has observed that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact, though she has been earning, she is not inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶50

Accordingly, the claim for maintenance by the appellant therein under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has been declined. Accordingly, the said appeal came to be dismissed. Basing on that, learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed and the wife is not entitled for any maintenance.

¶51

Learned counsel for the wife submits that the husband has also suppressed his income. Now he is earning Rs.2,97,000/- per month and that aspect was not disclosed before this Court. The solar loan has been cleared, but the same has been mentioned in this petition as due. It is submitted that the husband has come before this Court with suppression of facts. Considering the fact that she has to pay the EMI and other loans, the wife is entitled for the amount claimed by her. But the Court below without any basis, had granted an amount of Rs.8,000/- as monthly maintenance, which needs to be enhanced.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials on record.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶54

The parties who are claiming the relief before the Court should approach the Court with clean hands and any suppression from any of them, will have its consequences. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another¹ has dealt with this aspect. When the parties have filed statement of assets and liabilities and if any of the statements that are filed before the Court are proved to be false, then, the Court can initiate appropriate proceedings against the parties.

¶55

From the pleadings that are placed before the Court prima-facie it appears that, there is suppression of facts from both the parties. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 passed on IA No.3 in MC No.6198/2022 by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, is set aside and the family Court below shall consider all these contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. The wife shall also file her statement of accounts right from the date of the petition till this date, including the IT returns as contemplated as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case and based on that, the Court below shall pass appropriate order, and if any

¶56

1 AIR 2021 SC 569

¶57

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:27828 WP No. 14568 of 2024 C/W WP No. 10177 of 2024

¶58

suppression on behalf of either of the parties, then, the Court shall initiate appropriate action.

¶59

Registry is directed to send the entire record to the Court below to enable the Court to re-appreciate the matter in a better way. The application IA No.3 shall be disposed of within

¶60

two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

Accordingly, writ petitions stand disposed off.

¶62

All IA's, in the writ petitions stand disposed off.

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

¶65

CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mr. Manoj v. Vs Mrs Nandana K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Manoj v. Vs Mrs Nandana K

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 Jagadeesh Jayachandra Vs Smt. Sushmitha R

Madhura Prabhu, Vs Chethan Raj

Mrs. Geeta Subbiah Vs Mr. Mali Subbaiah

Smt Shantha Bai Vs Smt Saraswathi Bai

B R Ravi Kumar Vs the Air Craft Employees Housing

Mr.Karthik Kamath Vs Neethi D Nayak