Allowed

Mrs. Shruthi. S. v. Mr. Kiran. a

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WP/17875/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged inadequate interim maintenance in a matrimonial case. Holding that the husband's bank accounts showed substantial income and he had not denied ownership of properties in his objections, the High Court enhanced maintenance from Rs.10,000 to Rs.30,000 per month, directed him to bear the child's educational expenses, and to pay arrears within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.30,000 per month; husband to pay child's entire educational expenses with reimbursement of amounts paid by wife; arrears within four weeks.

Mrs. Shruthi. S. Vs Mr. Kiran. a — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17875 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. SHRUTHI S., W/O MR. KIRAN A., D/O LATE SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ROAD NO.6/1, 2^ND FLOOR 24^TH MAIN ROAD, E PIPE LINE ROAD, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 086

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR I.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed MR. KIRAN A., by YAMUNA K L S/O MR. K. ARASEGOWDA, Location: High AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Court of R/AT NO.3901/44, 1^ST MAIN, Karnataka 2^ND CROSS, GAYATHRI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 021

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D.N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM LEARNED II ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE CITY IN MC.NO.1225/2021, EXAMINE THE LEGALITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶17

DATED 27/03/2024, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ON I.A.NOS.5 AND 6 FILED U/S 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955;B) GRANT THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE AS SOUGHT IN THE PRAYER BY ENHANCING THE MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER AND MINOR SON; C) ENHANCE THE LITIGATION EXPENSES; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE ARREARS OF RENT DUE BY HIM OR ALTERNATIVELY TO PERMIT THE RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE SHARED HOUSE OF THE RESPONDENT, ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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 orders passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, on I.A.No.V and I.A.No.VI in M.C.No.1225/2021, dated 27.03.2024, the wife is before this Court. The parties are referred to as the husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶22

The husband had filed the M.C. petition, seeking dissolution of the marriage between himself and his wife. In that, the petitioner/wife herein had filed I.A.No.V and I.A.No.VI seeking interim maintenance of 75,000/- per month, arrears of rent, to pay the School fees of her son and the litigation expenses of an amount of 1,00,000/-. It is the case of the wife that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶24

04.12.2013 and out of the wedlock, they are blessed with a male child on 09.04.2016. The husband had filed a MC petition on the false allegations. In fact, it is her case that she has been mentally and physically harassed by the husband. It is stated that she has also filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act. It is her case that the husband has completed his B.E., M.S., and working as an Assistant Professor in AIT College, Hesaraghatta Main Road and is drawing salary of `50,000/- per month. It is stated that, he is the owner of several immovable properties and has let out around seven houses and receiving rental income. She has been paying the School fees of her son, who is studying at VVS Gandhi Centenary English School, Rajajinagar. When she has refused to give consent for divorce, the husband has blocked her mobile number and stopped paying the rent of the house. It is her case that, though she is an MBA Graduate, even before and after the marriage and even now, she is not working and she is not able to secure employment.

¶25

The respondent/husband had filed his objections to the said applications. It is the case of the husband that, he is a Civil Engineer and due to COVID pandemic, has suffered

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶27

massive loss and has to repay loan of `68,75,000/- to Canara Bank. Whereas the wife is an M.B.A. Graduate and she is the

¶28

joint owner of M/s. Sunila Wines and getting 15,000/- per month towards her share. She is a joint owner of six acres of coconut field and approximately getting income of 5,00,000/per annum. At the time of execution of the rental agreement, the husband had paid an amount of `50,000/- to the owner as advance amount. He had requested the landlord orally to deduct the arrears of rent from the advance amount. After the wife filed the Domestic Violence case against the husband, he stopped paying the rent. He undertakes to pay 50% towards his son’s educational expenses.

¶29

The Family Court, considering the submissions on behalf of both the parties, had granted an amount of 10,000/per month to the wife as well as her son as interim maintenance from the date of the application till the disposal of the case and the husband was directed to pay an amount 10,000/- towards litigation expenses and he was also directed to pay the actual educational expenses of his son to his wife for every academic year. The Court had directed the husband to

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶31

deposit the arrears within three months from the date of the said order.

¶32

While passing the said order, the Family Court had considered that the wife had not produced cogent material to show that, the husband is the owner of several immovable properties including houses and commercial shops and getting rental income. She has not produced the documents to show that the husband is the owner of Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Amruthur, Kunigal Taluk. The Court also observed that the Canara Bank and Axis Bank statements of the husband prima facie discloses that, he is getting regular income and capable to pay reasonable maintenance to his wife and son. The Court has also observed that though the wife is an MBA graduate, but the husband has failed to show that she is working and getting income, as such, he is not permitted to escape from the liability to pay the maintenance and accordingly, granted the maintenance.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that, the husband has filed the income tax returns for three years and for the year 2022-23, he has declared the

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶35

profit deemed under Section 44AD @8/% of `57,03,000/- is equal to Rs.4,56,240 and profit declared under Section 44AD @ 14.26% of Rs.57,03,000/- is equal to Rs.8,13,440/- and paid the tax. All the three years income-tax returns depicts the transactions of similar nature. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that, in these income tax returns, to show the profit, he had only shown the transactions pertaining to Axis Bank and he has failed to disclose the income tax details about his income/transactions that have taken place through Canara Bank account. It is submitted that even before the income tax Department, the husband had suppressed his true income. Though the wife has taken a specific stand that her husband owns immovable properties and is drawing lot of wealth from them, the husband has not denied it in his objections, which shows that the said fact has been accepted and there is no denial. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the Family Court, when this contention was raised by the wife, had given a finding that the wife had failed to produce the relevant document. When the contention of the wife is not denied in their statement of objections and not adverted to in their objections Statement, the Court should

¶36

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶37

have drawn an adverse inference and accepted the stand taken by the wife. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner/wife that, right from day one, the husband is not paying any amount for the maintenance of the wife and the child. When his income is running into lakhs of rupees, he has failed to maintain the wife and the child. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran Tomar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.¹ wherein it is stated that the income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is tendency to underestimate the income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence, what would be the real income of the parties, so as to enable the applicant to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that, the properties that are stated, the photographs that are filed and the income from both Canara Bank and Axis Bank statements clearly shows that the respondent/husband is

¶39

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC)904

¶40

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶41

having a good business and only an amount of `10,000/- per month is granted as maintenance to the wife. From an amount of Rs.10,000/-, it is very difficult for the wife and the child to sustain. All these factors were not taken into consideration by the Family Court.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ husband submits that, till the year 2021, till the wife had filed Domestic Violence Case, he has been paying an amount of `3,500/- as maintenance and also he was paying the rent of the house. Without any basis, when the domestic violence case is filed, from then on, he has not been paying any amount. It is submitted that in fact, he has been paying the school fees of the child right from 2019. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife had denied the same saying that only a part of the amounts are paid but the full school fees is not paid. It is submitted on behalf of the husband that if the wife is not in a position to take care of the child, the respondent/husband is ready to take care of the responsibility of the child. It is further submitted that when the case was coming up for the crossexamination right from the year 2022, on one pretext or the other, the wife is not co-operating with the trial and in this

¶43

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶44

regard, he has filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court had given a direction to the Family Court to expeditiously dispose of the MC petition. It is submitted that, the husband is ready to pay the entire school fees of the child and also an amount of 10,000/- per month to the wife and an amount of 5,000/- towards maintenance of the son and there may be a direction to the wife to proceed with the matter before the Family Court, expeditiously.

¶45

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent/husband that, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/ wife that the husband has not disclosed the Canara Bank account details is not true, as all the Bank accounts are linked to PAN and all those accounts reflect in the income tax statement filed by him.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner/wife had taken a specific stand that the husband is having immovable properties and also deriving income out of the same. His income runs into lakhs of rupees. The husband had filed his Canara Bank and Axis Bank accounts wherein it shows that

¶47

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶48

there are huge transactions as per the said accounts. When the wife had taken the specific stand with regard to the properties that are owned by the husband, when the husband had the opportunity to file his objections, for the reasons best known to them, it was never adverted to and they have not stated anything in their statement of objections. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that, due to oversight, the said aspect could not be adverted and the same should not be considered by the Court. When they have specifically adverted to each and every paragraph in filing their Statement of objections, it cannot be said that, due to oversight, they have not denied the same. The Bank accounts and the properties that are filed shows that the husband is having sufficient income and in spite of having income, the husband is not providing the maintenance to the wife and child, befitting his income and status. When the wife is not working and granting a maintenance of an amount of 10,000/- per month to the wife and the child, and how both the wife and the child will be able to maintain with that 10,000/- was not at all considered by the Family Court. Looking at the above material that is placed before this Court, in the considered opinion of the Court, the

¶49

11 -

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶51

husband is having sufficient income to take care of his wife and child which he is obligated to do.

¶52

Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The Writ Petition is allowed , by enhancing

¶55

the maintenance payable by the husband from

¶56

10,000/- per month to 30,000/- per month;

¶57

ii) The husband shall pay the entire educational expenses of the child. If the wife has already paid any portion of the educational expenses from the year 2022 till now, she can file the statement before the Family Court and basing on that, the said amounts have to be reimbursed by the husband to the wife;

¶58

iii) The arrears of maintenance, as ordered above, shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶59

iv) Once all the amounts are cleared, from

¶60

then on, in the next five months, the MC petition itself shall be disposed of by the Family Court.

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:31503 WP No. 17875 of 2024

¶62

12 -

¶63

Though the earlier order is passed by this Court, directing the Family Court to dispose of the case, in the light of the changed circumstances, it should be

¶64

disposed of, as observed above.

¶65

All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶66

Sd/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶67

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mrs. Shruthi. S. v. Mr. Kiran. a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Shruthi. S. v. Mr. Kiran. a

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

D S Aravind Vs D S Uma Devi

Smt. Rekha @ Surekh Pujari Vs Union of India

Mr. Dhevarath A.C. Vs Smt. Likitha R

Sri.S. Jayasimha Vs S Vishal

Smt. Surekha K., Vs Sri B M Govinda Gowda

Mr M Lakappa Vs Mr Suresh