Partly allowed

Sri D Umesh v. Smt Geetha

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/15367/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband filed writ petition to quash interim maintenance order under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act. Court reduced monthly maintenance from Rs.7,000 to Rs.5,000 based on petitioner's coolie work, while noting wife claimed higher income. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance reduced to Rs.5,000 per month from the petition date, payable within four weeks. Petition disposed of.

Sri D Umesh Vs Smt Geetha — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38317 WP No. 15367 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15367 OF 2021 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. D UMESH., S/O. N. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KARASAVADI VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571401.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. GEETHA, W/O. D. UMESH, D/O. KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O YELIYUR VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT- 571401.

¶13

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 ON IA.NO.I IN M.C.NO.9/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT ON PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA VIDE ANNX-F AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS I.A.NO.1 UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 IN M.C.NO.9/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANDYA AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:38317 WP No. 15367 of 2021

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1 in M.C. No.9/2020 dated 21.04.2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, the husband is before this Court.

¶22

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶23

The petitioner/husband herein had filed M.C.No.9/2020 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In that, the wife had filed I.A.No.1 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month for herself and her minor son. It is her case that the petitioner/husband is working as a security guard and earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month and because of the harassment by the petitioner, she had to leave the matrimonial home and he is also having agriculture income and he is having income of more than Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and works as a Manager in a Picture talkies and earns an amount of

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:38317 WP No. 15367 of 2021

¶26

Rs.30,000/- per month and despite having the income, he is not maintaining the wife.

¶27

The husband had filed his objections stating that the wife is earning. He is doing coolie work and he is not in a position to work because of his health condition. He has to take care of his mother who is having ailments. The Trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. By granting the maintenance, the Trial Court had observed that in an application like this, the Court has to find out whether the respondent/wife has sufficient source of income to maintain herself, whereas no such material is forthcoming before the Trial Court to say that the wife is capable of maintaining herself and the child. The Trial Court had observed that it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children. Though the wife had not proved exactly what is the income of the husband it would be just and proper to grant reasonable interim maintenance along with litigation expenses in order to facilitate the wife and the minor son to lead a dignified life. Accordingly, the Trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.6,000/- as litigation expenses.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:38317 WP No. 15367 of 2021

¶30

The notice is served on the respondent. No vakalath is filed on her behalf.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the petitioner is doing coolie work. Now, the son has attained majority and the wife is also working. All these aspects were not considered by the Trial Court. When the husband has taken a plea that the wife is earning, the Trial Court should have conducted the necessary enquiry in that regard and without any basis, the Trial Court had granted the maintenance amount. It is submitted that he has to take care of his mother and has to take care of his health and also both of them are having health ailments and it is very difficult for him to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material placed on record. The wife had stated that the husband is working as a security guard, working in a picture talkies and also he is having agriculture income but, no evidence is placed in that regard. The Trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.6,000/- as

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:38317 WP No. 15367 of 2021

¶35

litigation expenses. Considering the fact that he is working as a coolie, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following,

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The maintenance of an amount Rs.7,000/- per month is reduced to Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶38

ii. The petitioner/husband shall pay the amount of arrears at Rs.5,000/- from the date of the

¶39

petition till today, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

iii. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off . iv. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶42

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri D Umesh v. Smt Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Umesh v. Smt Geetha

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

H S Shivakumar (Vijay) Vs Kum Monisha S

Smt B S Shylaja Vs Smt Ambujakshi

Sri N Chandrashekar Vs Smt Aruna Kumari

Sri B v Surendra Vs Smt N S Nandini

Monappa Gowda @ Mohana Vs Sowmya @ Mohini

Mr. P. Kumar Vs Mrs. Mala