Dismissed

Sri. Dinesh. R v. Smt. Lokambika

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/15363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs.25,000/- monthly interim maintenance to his wife in divorce proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court found no error in the trial court's assessment of financial status and dismissed the writ petition, permitting an affidavit of assets per Rajnesh vs. Neha.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to file affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities before the trial court within two weeks.

Sri. Dinesh. R Vs Smt. Lokambika — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41892 WP No. 15363 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 15363 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DINESH R S/O RAMAKRISHNA R AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.68, SHIVAN TEMPEL ROAD SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, VENKATESHPURAM BENGALURU-560045

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. RADHAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. LOKAMBIKA D/O P ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.AG-09 SVS WIND GATE APARTMENTS BLOCK A, 13^TH CROSS, PRARUTHI TOWNSHIP BABUSAPALYA, HORAMAVU AGRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560043

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. UMESH B N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER MADE ON IA NO. 2 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU PASSED ON 24.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN MC

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41892 WP No. 15363 of 2024

¶16

NO. 1806/2021 AND REJECT THE SAID APPLICATION AS PER ANNEXURE-A1.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This writ petition filed challenging the order on I.A.No.II dated 24.03.2023 passed in M.C.No.1806/2021 by the IV Additional Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶21

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶22

The petitioner and the respondent are married after following the Hindu customs and traditions on 05.02.2009 at Bengaluru. The respondent-wife filed the petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') in M.C.1806/2021 on the file of VI Additional Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed I.A.No.II under Section 25(1) of the Act, seeking monthly interim maintenance. The petitioner did not file objections to the said

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41892 WP No. 15363 of 2024

¶24

application. The trial Court after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order, and I.A.No.II filed under Section 25(1) of the Act is allowed in part with costs and directed the petitioner-husband to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- from the date of filing of application I.A.No.II i.e., from 20.03.2021 pendente lite, to the respondent-wife, and two months time was granted to the petitioner-husband to pay arrears of maintenance. The petitioner-husband, aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.II, has filed this writ petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner through video conference and also learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is on the higher side. She submits that the trial Court, without considering the document produced by the parties, has passed the impugned order. She submits that

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41892 WP No. 15363 of 2024

¶28

no sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to file objections. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner, and they have two children. The respondent has no source of income to maintain the children. He submits that the trial Court considering the material placed on record was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶30

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

It is not disputed that the petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife. The respondent filed the petition seeking a decree of divorce in the said proceedings. The respondent filed an application under

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41892 WP No. 15363 of 2024

¶33

Section 25(1) of the Act. The husband and wife had two children. They are residing with the respondent. The respondent filed a divorce petition in MC.No.1086/2021. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed I.A.No.II for seeking interim maintenance. The trial Court granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file objections to I.A.No.II. The petitioner did not file objections to I.A.No.II. Though the respondent has not produced any records to establish the income of the petitioner, the trial Court, considering the financial status of the petitioner, has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/-. The trial

¶34

Court, considering the income and earning capacity of the respondent, has rightly passed the impugned order. I do not find any error in the impugned order.

¶35

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶38

Liberty is reserved for the petitioner to file

¶39

an affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities as

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41892 WP No. 15363 of 2024

¶41

per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH VS. NEHA AND ANOTHER reported

¶42

in (2021)2 SCC 324 before the trial Court

¶43

within two weeks from today.

¶44

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶45

SSB

Sri. Dinesh. R v. Smt. Lokambika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dinesh. R v. Smt. Lokambika

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

Shri. Niranjan Babu Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Sri K.M. Appaiah Vs Smt Gowramma

Sri. Dinesh Acharya Vs Sri. M. Hemachandra

Smt Venkatamma Vs Smt Venkatamma

Sri Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri Ravi Kumar

Sri M S Dharmapala Vs Sri M N Manjunatha