Disposed

Arzoo Samarth Jagnani v. Smarth Vimal Jagnani

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024WP/8612/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross writ petitions by a divorcing couple over interim maintenance of Rs.90,000 per month granted in a matrimonial dispute. Court dismissed the wife's enhancement petition given her income of Rs.35 lakh per annum, declined to disturb the maintenance order, directed deposit of arrears, and left perjury issues to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Wife's enhancement petition dismissed; husband's petition not granted interference; arrears to be deposited immediately and withdrawn subject to final orders.

Arzoo Samarth Jagnani Vs Smarth Vimal Jagnani — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8612 OF 2024 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6222 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶8

IN W.P.No.8612/2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ARZOO SAMARTH JAGNANI W/O SAMARTH VIMAL JAGNANI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT C1-1502, L AND T SOUTH CITY, AREKERE, MICO LAYOUT, BG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SAMARTH VIMAL JAGNANI S/O VIMAL JAGNANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. 302, BALAJI TOWERS, JAISUKHALA MEHTA ROAD, SANTACRUZ WEST, MUMBAI-400 054.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.DINESH D.TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.C.NO.6470/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶21

IN W.P.No.6222/2024

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

MR SAMARTH VIMAL JAGNANI S/O VIMAL JAGNANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.302, BALAJI TOWERS, JAISUKHLAL MEHTA ROAD, SANTACRUZ (WEST), MUMBAI- 400 054

¶24

…PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. NEHAL THIMMAIAH M.P., ADVOCATE Sri Dinesh D. TIWARI, Advocate)

¶26

AND:

¶27

MRS. ARZOO SAMARTH JAGNANI @ ARZOO RAMGOPAL JAJODIA, W/O SAMARTH JAGNANI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS RESIDING AT JAJODIA VILLA, MEGH MALHAR COMPLEX, NEAR ROYAL CHALLENGE RESTAURANT OFF. GEN A.K.VAIDYA MARG, GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI -400 063

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 12.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 2^ND ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BANGALORE UPON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 125 OF CPC AND SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT IN MC NO. 6470/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, in Crl.Misc. No.635/2019, Crl.Misc.No.293/2023 c/w MC.No.6470/2022 dated 12.02.2024 whereby the trial court had granted Rs.90,000/- as maintenance and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses, both the husband and wife are before this Court. Wife's writ petition is W.P.No.8612/2024 and the husband's writ petition is WP.No.6222/2024.

¶36

The husband has filed MC seeking divorce. Both the parties have come before this court by filing several writ petitions. Initially, W.P.No.11146/2022 is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 01.12.2020 passed by the Family Court upon the application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.Misc.No.635/2019. A coordinate bench of this court had passed an order dated 31.01.2023, observing that the stage for consideration of all those malafides in a challenge to an innocuous order is not entertainable. Hence, leaving open all the contentions of the respective parties to be urged before the concerned court, the petition is dismissed and the court has

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶39

also observed that both the husband and the wife shall cooperate with the proceedings for its conclusion in terms of the order. Then WP.No.21986/ 2023 and W.P.No.26319/2023 are filed by the husband and wife. Husband had questioned the interim order of maintenance granted to the wife. The wife sought for enhancement of maintenance. Then the Court by order dated 19.01.2024 had remanded the matter back to the family court to consider the application bearing in mind the observations made in the order and after perusing the assets and liabilities statement of both the husband and the wife. Further the court directed the trial court to terminate the proceedings. As it is 7 years since the parties are fighting before the concerned court. It is also observed that on the application under Section 24 of the Act, the proceedings shall conclude within three months. If the wife or the husband would not cooperate for conclusion of the proceedings, it is open to the concerned court to pass appropriate orders without waiting for the husband or the wife, whoever would default in not cooperating with the proceedings. The wife was permitted to withdraw the amount i.e., Rs.15,00,000/- deposited before the court. Then WP.No.6599/2024 came to be filed by the husband

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶42

wherein he had sought a relief directing the Family Judge to appoint Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence in MC.No.6470/2022 or alternatively to direct the court to record evidence through video conference and the same came to be disposed off on 12.03.2024 whereby this court has directed the trial court to give the dates for the cross examination continuously as required by the learned counsel for the wife for eight days and in the next eight sittings, the respondent shall conclude the cross examination. The husband is at liberty to give the convenient dates in this month. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed off.

¶43

Thereafter the trial court had passed an order whereby maintenance of an amount of Rs.90,000/- is granted to the wife. The husband had levelled certain allegations against the Judicial Officer and basing on that the case is transferred to other court, where the cross examination is going on. Now, the husband at one hand, says that the matter has to be disposed off as expeditiously as possible. Further, they have come up questioning the interim order that is passed by the trial court granting maintenance of Rs.90,000/per month. The undisputed facts are that the wife is earning an amount of

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶45

Rs.35,00,000/- per annum. According to the husband, his income is more than Rs.8,00,00,000/-.The husband questioned the said order on the ground that the wife had not stated all the relevant factors before the court. They stayed together for a very short time and husband cannot be made to pay maintenance to wife, when she is able to maintain herself.

¶46

The learned counsel for the husband submits that the wife has come up before the court with suppression of several material facts and the perjury proceedings have to be initiated against her. It is the submission of the learned counsel that no party shall be permitted to take the courts and the process for a ride. It is submitted that the husband and wife lived together for a very short time and he is not liable to pay the maintenance. The court ought not to have granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.90,000/-. According to him, the wife all through was working and the said facts were suppressed. It is the case of the wife that till 2022 she was not having job , from December 2022 she started working. The court had granted meager amount as maintenance without considering the husband’s income.

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶48

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record . The income of the husband is Rs.8,00,00,000/- per annum and the wife’s income is Rs.35,00,000/- per annum and she wants maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- per month. Looking at the respective contentions of both the parties, it appears that both of them have understood the purport of Section 24 of Hindu marriage Act, in a manner which is beneficial to them.

¶49

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:

¶50

Maintenance pendente-lite and expenses of proceedings:-

¶51

“ Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶53

The wife has come up before the court saying that the husbands income is Rs.8,00,00,000/- per annum, she requires Rs.3,50,000/- per month for maintenance. When she had come up with an application, burden lies on her to prove that she is not able to maintain herself and she is in need of maintenance to take care of herself and the legal necessities. In this case, the order is passed on 12.02.2024, from December,2022 since then she has been earning an income of Rs.35,00,000/- per annum. Apart from that by the order impugned, the court had granted Rs.90,000/- as maintenance. The wife again came up before this court seeking enhancement of the maintenance. This is nothing but a pure abuse of the process of law and also exploiting the provision which is enacted for the purpose of helping a litigant who is not able to take care of herself because of the disputes that arose between the parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this court also in several cases has considered that while granting maintenance court has to look into the social status of the parties and how they were leading the life before the disputes have started. All those judgments cannot be applied to a case of this nature where a woman who is getting a salary of Rs.35,00,000/- per annum and a monthly

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶55

maintenance of Rs.90,000/- is not sufficient to her. In fact, when this matter came up on the last occasion, this court has expressed that the court would dismiss these applications with exemplary costs. However, taking the lenient view this court is not imposing cost and this court feels that this is not the case where wife is entitled for enhancement of the maintenance and accordingly, the petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement is dismissed.

¶56

Then coming to the writ petition of the husband i.e., W.P.No.6222/2024 the husband questions the order on the same grounds which were earlier urged by him where he wanted perjury proceedings to be initiated. The court had observed that the issue can be taken up at an appropriate time. In spite of that, with the same stand, one after the other the husband is coming up before the court. First he wants the MC itself to be disposed off. According to him, he is residing in Mumbai and he cannot come to Bangalore. So some timeline should be prescribed for conducting the cross examination or else it should be done through video conferencing or a commissioner shall be appointed. Now, when the schedule is given by the court and when the interim maintenance is

¶57

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶58

granted and when the final application itself is going to be disposed off, he wants to again agitate and go back to the very same application and his prayer for early disposal, cross examination and all remains to be the same. He has gone to the extent of writing letters against the judicial officer that the timeline she is not adhering and several other allegations are levelled. The parties with their ego, are going to any extent and except their ego, they are least bothered about any other issues. It is not his case that he is not in a position to pay Rs.90,000/-. If the court comes to the conclusion that the parties have approached the court with suppression and misrepresentation of facts then the perjury proceedings would be initiated against the parties who have come before the court with all the misrepresentation and suppression of facts . But it appears that the husband has no patience. Whether wife had suppressed the facts, whether she was working or not, all these things will come to light during the course of trial. Hence, at this point, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court whereby maintenance of an amount of Rs.90,000/- is granted to the wife.

¶59

Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶60

11 -

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:33361 WP No. 8612 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6222 of 2024

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. If any applications are filed by any of the parties with the allegation of perjury the trial court, while deciding the main application shall decide those applications. If the court finds that any of the parties have played with the process of the court, apart from initiating perjury proceedings exemplary costs shall be imposed on both the parties by the trial court.

¶64

ii. The entire arrears at Rs.90,000/- from the date of application till the order by this court shall be deposited immediately and continue to deposit the amount every month before the trial court.

¶65

iii. Subject to the final orders to be passed by the court, the wife can withdraw the amount.

¶66

iv. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed off.

¶67

v. All the I.As., in the writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶68

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Arzoo Samarth Jagnani v. Smarth Vimal Jagnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arzoo Samarth Jagnani v. Smarth Vimal Jagnani

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

Thimmarasappa Vs the Commissioner

Nayeemuddin Khan Vs Smt Hajira Banu

Lakamma Vs Chikkamma

H. Manjunath Vs Chandana Alias

Smt Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

R. Anil Kumar Vs Smt. S. Veena