Partly allowed

Mrs. Pooja Maddolkar v. Mr. Darshan Ramesh Maddolkar

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024WP/21611/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced interim maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month. It directed the husband to pay arrears within two months as a condition for the Trial Court to dispose of the main maintenance cause. The wife was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced to Rs. 20,000 p.m.; husband directed to pay arrears within 2 months; main maintenance case to be disposed of only upon clearance of arrears; wife directed to cooperate.

Mrs. Pooja Maddolkar Vs Mr. Darshan Ramesh Maddolkar — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39876 WP No. 21611 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 21611 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. POOJA MADDOLKAR W/O. MR. DARSHAN RAMESH MODDOLKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT C/O. MR.RAJESH PATIL NO.145, V.K.MUNIRAJU BUILDING 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VISHWANATH NAGENAHALLI R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BHOJAPPA K.K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. DARSHAN RAMESH MADDOLKAR SON OF MR. RAMESH MADDOLKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCCUPATION: SOFTWARE ENGINEER (WIPRO COMPANY) RESIDING AT. B-WING-1102 POOJA GALAXY, POOJA COMPLEX WAGABHIL NAKA, THANE WEST MUMBAI-400 607 STATE: MAHARASHTRA.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE FROM RS. 10,000/- (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND ONLY) TO RS. 25,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND) WITH DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT TO PAY THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE IN

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:39876 WP No. 21611 of 2023

¶19

CRL. MISC. 793/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 2^ND ADDL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU. THE VIDE ORDERS DATED: 13/04/2023 AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc. No.793/2019 c/w M.C.No.3945/2022 dated 13.04.2023 by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the wife is before this Court.

¶24

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

¶25

The wife had filed I.A.No.2 under section 125(1) of CrPC seeking direction to the respondent/husband to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month and also Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is the case of the wife that the husband is working in Singapore and earning an amount of Rs.1,91,895/-, he owns a house, a flat in “Pooja Galaxy” worth more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- at Thane, Mumbai and he is getting rental income of Rs.3,00,000/- per month and

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39876 WP No. 21611 of 2023

¶27

one more residential house, which is ancestral house inherited from his father. The respondent/husband had only filed a memo to adopt the main objections to the petition. It is the case of the husband that the wife is working in Raymond’s company and drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. On the other hand, it is his case that he is getting salary of more than Rs.90,000/- per month and after deduction, approximately left with Rs.70,000/- for maintaining his family expenses, looking after the medical expenses of his mother and other expenses of his family dependents.

¶28

While allowing the application, the Trial Court had observed that even if it is presumed that the wife is getting Rs.20,000/- income per month, since the price of essential commodities are reached to sky, Rs.20,000/- is not sufficient for maintaining herself. The respondent being the husband of the petitioner/ wife, it is the bounden duty to take care of her. Considering all that, the Trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and also another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards one time litigation expenses. Aggrieved thereby the wife is before this Court.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:39876 WP No. 21611 of 2023

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that when the husband is earning more than one Lakh as salary, also he is having rental income and also other properties, the Trial Court had only granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. While granting the maintenance, the Trial Court had failed to consider all these aspects. He submits that the contention of the husband that she is working in Raymond’s company is also without any basis and as per the notice sent to the Raymond’s company where they have stated that earlier she was working and now, she is not working. He submits that considering the financial capabilities of the husband and the fact that the wife is not working, the Trial Court ought to have granted a reasonable maintenance under the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits the M.C. is filed in the year 2015 before the Family Court at Mumbai and later, on the transfer petition filed by the wife, it is transferred to the Family Court at Bangalore. He submits that while transferring the petition, the Family Court, Mumbai had observed that as this is the M.C. of the year 2015, it has to be disposed off expeditiously as possible. It is the case

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39876 WP No. 21611 of 2023

¶34

of the husband that wife is not cooperating with the trial and she is not entering into the witness box. He submits that if the wife is successful in proving that what is the income of the husband and he would be able to elicit whether she is working or not and whether all the facts that are stated before the Trial Court are correct or not, if effective adjudication can be done and the Trial Court would be in a position to pass appropriate order. He submits that the Trial Court had already granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on records. According to the husband, the wife is working. According to the wife, she is not working and according to her, the husband is having income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month and he is having rental income of Rs.3,00,000/- and other immovable properties. According to the husband, his salary is Rs.90,000/- per month and he has other loans to be paid and his take home salary is an amount of Rs.70,000/- per month and he has old age mother to take care of. The M.C. is of the year 2015, even after 9 years, the same is pending. Considering the income of the husband and as of

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:39876 WP No. 21611 of 2023

¶38

now there is nothing to show that the wife is earning. This Court deems it appropriate pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The maintenance is enhanced from an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶41

ii. The husband shall pay the arrears of maintenance to the wife within a period of two months from the date of copy of this order.

¶42

iii. If the arrears are not paid, the matter shall not be taken up by the Trial Court for final adjudication. If all the arrears are paid by the husband within a period of two months, the main M.C. itself shall be disposed off from the date of clearing the arrears.

¶43

iv. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the wife from the date of receipt of copy of this order till the M.C. is decided by the Trial Court.

¶44

v. The wife shall co-operate with the proceedings and unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted by the Trial Court.

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39876 WP No. 21611 of 2023

¶46

vi. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off .

¶47

vii. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)

¶50

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Mrs. Pooja Maddolkar v. Mr. Darshan Ramesh Maddolkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Pooja Maddolkar v. Mr. Darshan Ramesh Maddolkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shreyas a Vs Sri. Dhanashankara Reddy B N

Sri Siddarameshwara Vidya Samasthe Vs Smt Shankuntala K

Manjunatha G B Vs Smt Pavithra M C

Smt Radha Vs Dr C Ashok

Sri Honnappa Vs Smt Parvathamma N

Smt. Kirthana M v Vs Sri. a B Charan Kumar