Dismissed

Sri. Swamy H.J., v. Smt. Sanjana G L

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/6056/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a husband seeking to set aside an interim maintenance order of Rs. 12,000/month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. granted to his wife. The Court held that remanding the matter solely to force filing of asset statements was impermissible when the applicant had failed to do so at the appropriate stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and all interim applications in the writ petition were closed.

Sri. Swamy H.J., Vs Smt. Sanjana G L — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30447 WP No. 6056 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6056 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SWAMY H.J., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O JAYAPPA H.C. R/O KAKANURU VILLAGE, CHANANGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA D.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. SANJANA G.L. 25 YEARS W/O SWAMY H.J. D/O G.M.LOKESHAPPA R/O SHREE BADAVANE NEAR OBC HOSTEL NAVULE SHIVAMOGGA

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.V.SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 18.12.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 FILED U/S 125(1)(a)(2) OF Cr.P.C. IN CRL.MISC. 140/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT SHIVAMOGGA, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:30447 WP No. 6056 of 2024

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1 in

¶24

Crl.Misc.No.140/2023 dated 18.12.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.

¶25

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

¶26

The wife had filed Crl.Misc.No.140/2023 under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. and in that, she has filed I.A.No.1. seeking interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month and litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.30,000/-. It is the case of the wife that immediately after the marriage, within two months, the in-laws started to harass her for dowry and wrongfully confined her in the godown. With all the harassment, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and she filed complaint before Mahila Police Station, Shivamogga. It is stated that now the wife is staying along with her parents, she is not earning and she requires the maintenance. According

¶27

to the wife, the husband is having properties and also

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:30447 WP No. 6056 of 2024

¶30

doing business and earning sufficiently. The wife has also filed the statement of assets and liabilities to show what is the income and also she has mentioned about the car, tractor and other movable and immovable properties of the husband.

¶31

The husband had filed his objections making several allegations against the wife. It is his case that the wife had deserted the husband without any reasonable cause. He simply denied that he is having ancestral agricultural property and having income of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.

¶32

While granting the maintenance of an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the wife, the trial Court had observed that the wife had filed her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities stating that she has studied II PUC and completed Basic Computer course and she is residing in her parental house and she has no job. The husband is carrying on business of renting tentacles etc., having a share in the joint family property, living in his own house belonging to his father. The Court had also observed that the husband had not filed his affidavit of disclosures of assets and liabilities which are within

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:30447 WP No. 6056 of 2024

¶35

his knowledge and the same is mandated as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha¹ . When the husband has failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities, the trial Court has drawn an adverse inference as per the judgment. It is also not the case of the husband that the wife is having income to support herself nor he is a physically disabled man. Considering all these, the trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the wife.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that basing on the statement made by the wife with regard to the income, the trial Court had granted the maintenance and there was no material before the Court regarding what is the income of the husband. It is submitted that the husband is an agriculturist and he has to support his aged parents and he is not in a position to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife. Further, the wife had stayed with the husband for a very short time and she

¶37

1 2021 (2) SCC 324

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30447 WP No. 6056 of 2024

¶39

has voluntarily left the matrimonial home, as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the wife had filed her statement of assets and liabilities and she has categorically mentioned what is the income of the husband and what are the assets. The husband has not filed his statement of assets and liabilities and the trial Court had rightly granted the maintenance. Learned counsel submits that with an intention to suppress his income he has not filed his statement of assets and liabilities and the trial Court had rightly drawn adverse inference and granted the maintenance. It is submitted that no grounds are made out seeking interference with the well considered order passed by the Court.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha referred supra, the parties have to file their respective statements of assets and liabilities. In majority of the cases,

¶42

the parties are not filing their respective statement of assets and liabilities before the trial Court and after an order is passed

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:30447 WP No. 6056 of 2024

¶45

by the trial Court, they are coming before this Court and on the ground that they have not filed the statement of assets and liabilities, they want the matter to be remanded back to the trial Court for adjudication on that. This exercise is not permissible. As per the law laid down by Apex Court it mandates that they have to file their respective statements of assets and liabilities, it is the duty of the parties to file the same and they cannot afford to waste the judicial time by not filing the same and again asking this Court to remand the matter to the trial Court for that purpose. Such an exercise ios not permissible.

¶46

Coming to the facts of the case, in this case, when the wife had stated so many things in her I.A. about the income of the husband, the husband ought to have filed his specific objections to that, but instead of filing the objections to that, he had filed a memo adopting his objections to the main petition. When it comes to the statement of assets and liabilities filed by the wife, there also she had mentioned about certain properties, his business and he has chosen not to deny the same and he kept quiet and the trial Court had granted

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30447 WP No. 6056 of 2024

¶48

maintenance. This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶51

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

¶52

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶53

MEG

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Swamy H.J., v. Smt. Sanjana G L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Swamy H.J., v. Smt. Sanjana G L

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

Mr Gautammakker Vs Smt Shails Faleiro

Smt. Kempamma Vs Sri.Raju

Master Lenneil D Lima Vs Sri Oswald Herman D Lima

Sri Sebastian Bunty D Vs Smt T N Supritha

Sri. Balaji Rao .T.R., Vs Kumari. Jhanavi

Sri v S Ramachandra Vs Smt. Mahalakshmi