Mrs. Apoorva S Kini, Vs Mr. Rithesh Prabhu

MR. RITHESH PRABHU S/O VENKATESH PRABHU, AGE 29 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 3-222(5), DEVAKI KRISHNA, NELLIGUDDE, MOODUBIDRI TALUK, D K ALSO AT C/O MARUTHI ENTERPRISES, NEAR KALSANKA, MOODABIDRI, D K DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

¶26

2 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:28113-DB MFA No. 820 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4828 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

DATED 27.04.2024 PASSED IN MC NO. 169/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K.MANGALURU, DECREEING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, ETC.

¶30

IN MFA NO. 4828/2024:

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

MR RITHESH PRABHU S/O. VENKATESH PRABHU, AGE 29 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.3-222(5), DEVAKI KRISHNA, NELLIGUDDE, MOODUBIDRI TALUK, D.K. ALSO AT C/O. MARUTHI ENTERPRISES, NEAR KALSANKA, MOODABIDRI, D.K.DISTRICT-574 227.

¶33

...APPELLANT

¶34

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

MRS APOORVA S KINI D/O. SADASHIVA KINI, W/O. RITHESH PRABHU, AGE 26 YEARS, R/AT 301, AGRAJA SHILAS APARTMENT, HOLIGEBAIL ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT-575 006

¶37

...RESPONDENT

¶38

(BY SRI. RAKESH KINI., ADVOCATE)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2024 PASSED IN MC NO.169/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K.MANGALURU, AWARDING PERMANENT ALIMONY OF RS.20,00,000/- AND COST OF LITIGATION OF RS.20,000 FROM THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE

¶40

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28113-DB MFA No. 820 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4828 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶43

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶45

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶48

These appeals are against the order and decree in M.C.No.169/2023 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru [for short ‘ the Family Court’ ]. The Family Court, by the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, has allowed the petition under Section 13[1] [ia] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short, ‘ the H.M. Act' ] dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnized on 18.11.2020 at Devadiga Samaj Bhavan, Mangaluru. The Family Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the H.M. Act, has also granted permanent alimony

¶49

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28113-DB MFA No. 820 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4828 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

in a sum of Rs.20,00,000 and a sum of Rs.20,000/as litigation costs.

¶52

The appellant in MFA No.820/2025 [ the wife ] is aggrieved by the quantum of permanent alimony and therefore she has filed her appeal in MFA No.820/2025. The appellant in MFA No.4828/2025 [ the husband ] is also aggrieved by the grant of permanent alimony and hence this appeal. In compliance with this Court’s interim order in these proceedings, the husband has deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no dispute that the couple has reconciled to the dissolution of their marriage, and the only question for consideration in these cross appeals is whether the Court must intervene with the quantum of permanent alimony that is granted by the Family Court.

¶53

Sri. Rakesh Kini and Sri. Prasanna V R, the learned counsels who appear respectively for the wife and the husband, are heard on this question.

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28113-DB MFA No. 820 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4828 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

This Court has adjourned the appeals on multiple occasions to enable the learned counsels to secure instructions on what could be acceptable to both the parties as alimony. Sri. Prasanna V R submits that the husband, who is employed with a private enterprise, is financially constrained because he has spent more than Rs.8,00,000/- for his father's surgery. The learned counsel also submits that the husband can, given all his constraints, only muster another 8 to 9 lakhs provided he is given 6 months. Sri. Rakesh Kini is heard in the light of this submission and the undisputed fact that the wife is also a double graduate and employed.

¶57

This Court, to ensure that there is no precipitation and that mutual interests are balanced at the earliest, is of the considered view that the question for consideration must be answered limiting the permanent alimony granted by the Family Court to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and holding that the wife

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28113-DB MFA No. 820 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4828 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

will be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.5,00,000/in deposit along with accrued interest. Further, the husband must have a reasonable time to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and he must be given six months from today; and that if there is any delay, the husband should pay interest at 12% per annum. Significantly, with the parties reconciling to the dissolution of marriage and with this order on permanent alimony, all pending proceedings must be closed. Hence, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The appeals are allowed in-part, and the impugned order and decree dated 27.04.2024 in M.C. No.169/2023 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is modified declaring that:

¶63

[i] The appellant in MFA No.4828/2024 shall pay to the appellant in MFA No.820/2025 a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as alimony.

¶64