Allowed

Mrs. Vidyalakshmi v. Mr. Shyama Chinmaya S

Karnataka HC28 Feb 2024WP/24475/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged dismissal of her interim maintenance application in a matrimonial case. The High Court held that despite her Ph.D. stipend being minimal and no independent income, she was entitled to maintenance, set aside the Family Court's order, and granted Rs.20,000 per month from the date of petition.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.08.2023 set aside; I.A.No.II allowed; Rs.20,000/- p.m. interim maintenance from date of petition, outstanding within eight weeks.

Mrs. Vidyalakshmi Vs Mr. Shyama Chinmaya S — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8418 WP No. 24475 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24475 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. VIDYALAKSHMI W/O SHYAMA CHINMAYA S, AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT ANURADHAPURA, KINGS PARK LAYOUT, MARYHILL, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE 575015

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PREREET JAIN B.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. SHYAMA CHINMAYA S S/O NARAYANA BHAT, R/AT MAHAMAYA SANNIDHI, KINGS PARK LAYOUT, MARYHILL, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE 575015

¶13

(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 19.08.2023 IN M.C.NO.104/2023 PASSED BY PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MANGALORE, DK VIDE ANNEXURE-M ON I.A.NO.II AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:8418 WP No. 24475 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.2, in M.C.

¶21

No.104/2023, dated 19.08.2023, by the Principal Judge Family Court, Mangalore D.K., the petitioner/wife is before this Court. She has filed I.A.No.2 in M.C. No.104/2023 seeking interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.13,000/- p.m. It is her case that she was working as an Assistant Professor at RNS Institute of Technology, at Bengaluru and as the respondent has deserted her without any reason, she was constrained to leave her job and came down to Bengaluru where she is doing her Ph.d. The respondent herein is a B.E. Graduate and working in a German based company and earning an amount of Rs.51,700/- p.m. The petitioner is not able to maintain herself and as she has no independent income she has filed an application seeking interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.13,000/- p.m. The same was opposed by the respondent by stating that he is having monthly income of Rs.51,700/- and he requires Rs.48,900/- towards his own expenses and expenses of his parents. According to him, the petitioner is getting a stipend of Rs.25,000 - 30,000/- p.m., and she is not entitled for any maintenance.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:8418 WP No. 24475 of 2023

¶24

The court below has observed that the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor and has her own income she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. When her husband expressed that he is ready to take his wife back to her matrimonial home she changed her decision and withdrawn the petition. She resigned her job and started pursuing Ph.D. It is not her case that she has taken permission to join Ph.D or that the respondent ensured her that he will take care of her expenses and he has no objection for the resignation. The court below observed that in the opinion of the court she is not entitled to impose her expenses on her husband. That too after withdrawing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly dismissed the petition filed by the wife.

¶25

Notice to respondent is served and there is no vakalat filed on his behalf.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no source of income and the stipend that she is getting is Rs.1,10,000/- for the entire Ph.D course and apart from that she requires money to sustain herself. The court below had dismissed the petition merely on

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:8418 WP No. 24475 of 2023

¶29

the ground that the restitution petition is withdrawn and no permission is sought for joining in Ph.D. Learned counsel submits that this is contrary to the passport of Section-24 of the Act. He further submits that as she is not in a position to maintain herself and she is depending on the parents, therefore husband has every obligation to maintain the wife during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute about the income of the husband i.e., Rs.51,700/-. According to him, his father and mother are dependant upon him. But in the statement of assets and liabilities he has stated that his father is working as an insurance agent and that he has taken education and personal loan from the banks. Considering all these facts and the fact that the petitioner has no source of income this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance. The court below failed to appreciate the material facts. Accordingly, I.A.No.II filed in M.C. No.104/2023 is allowed by setting aside the order date 19.08.2023. The respondent shall pay amount of Rs.20,000/- p.m., to the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:8418 WP No. 24475 of 2023

¶33

petitioner as interim maintenance from the date of petition. The amount shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶34

5. Accordingly, the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 19.08.2003.

¶37

ii. I.A. No. II is allowed by granting an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as interim maintenance to the wife from the date of petition till the date of order and continues to pay by 5th of every succeeding month.

¶38

iii. The outstanding amount shall be paid with in eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

¶41

Mrs. Vidyalakshmi v. Mr. Shyama Chinmaya S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Vidyalakshmi v. Mr. Shyama Chinmaya S

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

Smt Trishu M Reddy Vs Sri Vikrama Reddy

Deepa Darshan H P Vs Smt Shruthi H K

Zakariya @ Zacharia Vs the Child Welfare Development

Mr. Monto Mani Vs Mrs Geethanjali

Smt Anu Jain Vs Sri Dhareshwar G M

Mrs. Syeda Amthul Habeed Vs Mr. Syed Muneeb