Allowed

Smt Rashmi M v. Sri Pawan Kumar T S

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024WP/6608/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Family Court order dismissing an interim maintenance application. Finding the husband failed to file assets and denying a claimed high income without objection, the Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/month and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/month granted; litigation expenses of Rs.50,000 ordered.

Smt Rashmi M Vs Sri Pawan Kumar T S — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9786 WP No. 6608 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6608 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RASHMI M, W/O SRI PAWAN KUMAR T.S, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/64, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, N.R. COLONY, BENGALURU– 560 019.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K. ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

SRI. PAWAN KUMAR T.S, S/O LATE SRI. T.R. SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.122, 7TH MAIN, 21ST CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 076

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. SUHAS G, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN M.C. NO.6354/2021 BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW IA NO.II/2021 AND GRANT INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.20,000/PER MONTH AND LITIGATION EXPENSES OF RS.1,00,000/- AGAINST THE RESPONDENT PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE MAIN PETITIONER IN MC NO.6354/2021 AND ETC.,

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9786 WP No. 6608 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitionerwife aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2023 passed on I.A.No.2/2021 in M.C.No.6354/2021 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶19

The respondent-husband has filed a petition before the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.6275/2017 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2021. Thereafter, the respondenthusband has preferred an appeal in MFA No.7065/2021 before this Court which is pending consideration. The petitioner-wife had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.6354/2021 and in the said petition, she sought for interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month and also litigation expenses of

¶20

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Court below by order impugned dated 01.02.2023 had dismissed the application observing that if she succeeds in proving that she is not

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9786 WP No. 6608 of 2023

¶22

having job and source-less lady as stated by her and the husband is working in a MNC Company and getting salary of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per month, she will be entitled for maintenance and litigation expenses on production of proper oral and documentary evidence at the time of final disposal of the petition. Aggrieved thereby, wife is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that right from the year 2021, she has been fighting the litigation M.C.No.6275/2017 is filed by the husband for divorce and the same was dismissed now, MFA No.7065/2021 was filed by the respondent-husband before this Court and also the petitioner-wife filed M.C.No.6354/2021 for restitution of conjugal rights and she has been incurring substantial amounts to fight the litigation. Further, learned counsel submits that the respondent-husband has failed to file the statement of assets and liabilities. The Court below without even considering the said fact, fixed the burden on the

¶24

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9786 WP No. 6608 of 2023

¶25

petitioner-wife to show that what is the amount that has been spent by the husband towards the dependants. Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner has come up before the Court saying that the respondenthusband is working in MNC and getting salary of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per month and no objections are filed to the same by the respondent-husband. The Court below should have taken an adverse inference for the same and ought to have granted the compensation to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is facing lot of hardship and financial crisis as she is not employed and because of the litigation pending between the parties, she lost her job in the private Company.

¶26

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband submits that the wife is gainfully employed and except stating that, the husband is working in a MNC and drawing salary of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- no positive evidence is placed in this regard. The Court below had rightly observed that it is for

¶27

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9786 WP No. 6608 of 2023

¶28

the wife to prove that during the course of trial with regard to the income of the husband and the aspect she is not earning, she would be granted maintenance and it is submitted that the Court below had rightly dismissed the petition as no evidence is placed on record.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. It is the specific case of the wife that the husband is earning an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per month. She has filed a statement of assets and liabilities. Unfortunately, the husband has not filed the statement of assets and liabilities. The finding of the Court that if the same is proved by the petitioner-wife, eventually, she is entitled for maintenance. This Court is not able to appreciate the finding of the Court below which is contrary to purport of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. If the husband denies that he is earning an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per month, he should have filed an objection and come up with statement of assets and liabilities. Now this application is filed in the year 2021, till

¶30

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9786 WP No. 6608 of 2023

¶31

now, series of litigations are pending between the parties. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that she is entitled for the interim maintenance. she has sought for an amount of Rs.20,000/as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/as litigation expenses. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose off the Writ Petition in the following manner:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed on I.A.No.II in M.C.No.6354/2021 by II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶34

The respondent-husband shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶35

The petitioner -wife is entitled for maintenance at an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of the petition, till date of order and he shall continue to pay the same on every 5^th of succeeding month.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:9786 WP No. 6608 of 2023

¶38

The arrears shall be paid at Rs.15,000/- per month. Half of the amount shall be paid within three months from today i.e., by 11^th of June, 2024 and remaining half of the arrears should be paid by 11^th of September, 2024.

¶39

It is open to the parties to adduce their evidence with regard to all aspects of maintenance during the course of trial.

¶40

The petitioner shall furnish the account details within three days from today to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent -husband before the Court below.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK

Smt Rashmi M v. Sri Pawan Kumar T S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rashmi M v. Sri Pawan Kumar T 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

Malike Saba, Vs Sameer Hamsa Ramla

Vanajakshi Vs Imtiyaz Ulla

Sri Jagadeesh @ Javaraiah Vs Praveen Kumar

Smt. Vanathy Rajkumar Vs Mr. K Harish Kumar

Dr. Edmond Clint Fernandes Vs Mrs. Delma Lubna Coelho

Mrs M S Praveenalakshmy 39 Years Vs Dr M S Senthilnathan 44 Years