Disposed

Smt T Geethanjali v. Sri N Gnanendra Reddy

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024WP/15998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-writ petitions by wife and husband against an interim maintenance order of Rs.7,500/- per month. The High Court set aside the order for want of full financial disclosure and remitted the matter to the Family Court, directing production of three years' bank statements, with Rs.5,000/- per month interim maintenance in the meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim maintenance order set aside; matter remitted for fresh orders on bank statements; Rs.5,000/month interim maintenance; wife may withdraw Rs.50,000 deposited.

Smt T Geethanjali Vs Sri N Gnanendra Reddy — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26192 WP No. 15998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 12873 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15998 OF 2024 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12873 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.15998/2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. T. GEETHANJALI W/O. N. GNANENDRA REDDY D/O. THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO. 21, 4^TH MAIN NEAR SATHYANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE SHIVAPURA COLONY, PEENYA BENGALURU-560 058.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA .K.B, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. N. GNANENDRA REDDY S/O JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 19/1 K.R. DEFENSE COLONY 1^ST PHASE, CHEEASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI ADJACENT TO SLV CONDIMENTS CHEEMASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 049.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. HARISH .N.R, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:26192 WP No. 15998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 12873 of 2024

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2024 PASSED IN IA NO. 3 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 725/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

IN W.P.NO.12873/2024

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SRI. N. GNANENDRA REDDY S/O JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 19/1 K.R. DEFENSE COLONY 1^ST PHASE, CHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI ADJACENT TO SLV CONDIMENTS CHEEMASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 049.

¶22

…PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. HARISH .N.R, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SMT. T. GEETHANJALI W/O. N. GNANENDRA REDDY D/O. THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO. 21, 4^TH MAIN NEAR SATHYANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE PEENYA, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA .K.B, ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN CRL. MISC. NO. 725/2022 DATED

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26192 WP No. 15998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 12873 of 2024

¶30

22.02.2024, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2024 passed on I.A.No.3 whereby the Court below has granted an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife, both the wife and husband are before this Court. The wife’s writ petition is numbered as W.P.15998/2024 and the husband’s writ petition is numbered as W.P.No.12873/2024.

¶34

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

¶35

The wife had filed the petition in

¶36

Crl.Misc.No.725/2022 seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Pending disposal of the main petition, petitioner filed I.A.No.3 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. It is her case that her marriage with the respondent had taken place on 27.08.2021 and according to her, they lived

¶37

together only for five months and thereafter, because of the disputes and the harassment meted out by her husband, she

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26192 WP No. 15998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 12873 of 2024

¶39

has to leave her matrimonial home. It is here further case that before marriage she was working and because of the harassment of the husband, now, she is not in a position to work. She is also having back pain and thyroid issues. According to her, the respondent/husband is getting Rs.19,517/- towards pension and Rs.28,000/- by working as a driver on contract basis and apart from this, he is also having money lending business.

¶40

It is the case of the husband that he is only having income of Rs.19,517/-. He has to take care of his parents. The petitioner/wife was working and she is capable of earning and as such she is not entitled for maintenance. In fact, it is the second marriage to both the parties and their marriage only lasted for five months. It is stated that he has filed a petition in M.C.No.4602/2023 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Even today, he is ready to take back his wife. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner/wife is having two bank accounts. She has filed only the account statement for six months of only one bank account. Had she filed the entire account statement of three years, the things would have been different as the bank statements itself would speak the financial

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26192 WP No. 15998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 12873 of 2024

¶42

capacity of the wife. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there shall be a direction to the petitioner to file the said documents before this Court.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, perused the entire material on record.

¶44

It is the contention of the husband that petitioner/wife was earlier working and is capable of earning and that she has not filed all the documents relating to her bank accounts before the Court. According to the wife, she has filed the bank statement after their marriage as the bank

¶45

statement prior to their marriage is not required. I have considered the contentions of the husband that the wife is capable of earning and she was earlier working and also the contention that their marriage lasted only for a brief period of five months. Why the petitioner wife is not working now is also

¶46

not known. Admittedly, there are no children out of the wedlock. Except this, nothing has been stated. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband, once all the bank statements, which are relevant, are produced before the Court, it would disclose the financial position and

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26192 WP No. 15998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 12873 of 2024

¶48

capacity of the wife and the same would be useful for the trial Court to determine the amount of compensation she is entitled to.

¶49

In the light of the above circumstances, this Court is passing the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.3 in Crl.Misc.No.725/2022 is hereby set aside.

¶52

(ii) The matters are remitted back to the Court below wherein both the parties shall place before the Court their respective bank statements for a period of three years. Basing on that, the Court below shall pass appropriate orders.

¶53

(iii) Till the application is decided by the Court below, the respondent/husband shall continue to pay Rs.5,000/per month towards interim maintenance to the petitioner/wife.

¶54

(iv) The petitioner/wife is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the husband pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:26192 WP No. 15998 of 2024 C/W WP No. 12873 of 2024

¶56

¶57

(v) Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶58

(vi) All pending I.As, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/JUDGE

¶60

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Smt T Geethanjali v. Sri N Gnanendra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T Geethanjali v. Sri N Gnanendra Reddy

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

Sri Mohammed Dilshad Vs Smt Naseeba Katoon

Sri Kumaraswamy T Vs Smt Pavitra K

Mrs Arfa Sharieff Vs Mr Rehan Sayeed

Sri Nanjappa Vs Smt Eramma

Smt. a Jyothi Vs J Prabhakar Rao

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited Vs Col.C.S.Madappa