Dismissed¶69

Sri. T. B. Ramakrishnan @ Sriram v. Smt. Anjana Pattabiraman

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025MFA/8636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Permanent alimony Rs.15,00,000 upheld; divorce on cruelty under S.13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act 1955; appeal under S.19(1) Family Courts Act 1984 dismissed; Family Court Bengaluru M.C.No.428/2014 decree confirmed; wife's alleged TCS software technician employment not established; Cognizant USA LinkedIn profile sheet unproved; husband's plea of unemployment after leaving UK job rejected; legally bound to maintain wife; father's support no bar to maintenance; Warwick University masters; Wayanad Kerala; award neither arbitrary nor perverse; no interference.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.428/2014 (divorce with permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-) was confirmed. ¶69

Sri. T. B. Ramakrishnan @ Sriram Vs Smt. Anjana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-wife was gainfully employed with an independent source of income — allegedly as a software technician at TCS, or per an unproved LinkedIn profile sheet as an employee of Cognizant Company, USA — such that the permanent alimony award should be set aside. +2 more

¶42

Court's answer

After marriage the petitioner left her job at the instance of the respondent and his parents; she was not doing any job during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, and this was not disputed even in the respondent's (RW-1's) evidence.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The appeal was concerned only with the award of permanent alimony; there was no need to reconsider point No.1 (cruelty) already decided by the Family Court.

¶42

Key takeaways

The appellant-husband's contention that the petitioner was working as a software engineer in TCS was not established before the Family Court and no reliable evidence was placed on record to prove it.ratio¶53
The LinkedIn profile sheet said to show the wife's employment in Cognizant Company, USA was not proved by any cogent evidence, and it was not suggested in her cross-examination that she was working in Cognizant, USA; hence the fact of her employment was not proved.ratio¶57
The fact that the wife's father was supporting her cannot be a ground to deny her right to claim maintenance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 8636 of 2016 (FC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (coram: Jayant Banerji and Umesh M Adiga JJ.; CAV judgment per Umesh M Adiga J.), dated 22.08.2025 — Filed by the husband under S. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.428/2014, whereby the wife's petition under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (intolerable cruelty) was allowed and permanent alimony of Rs. 15,00,000/- awarded; the appeal was confined to the alimony award. Held: (i) PW-1 left her job after marriage at the instance of the respondent and his parents and was unemployed throughout the proceedings; the claim that she worked as a software engineer/technician at TCS was not established by any reliable evidence; (ii) the LinkedIn profile sheet suggesting her employment with Cognizant Company, USA was unproved and was never put to her in cross-examination; (iii) her father's financial support is no ground to deny her right to maintenance; (iv) the husband's plea of unemployment after leaving his UK job was disbelieved — he admitted UK employment at trial, is well qualified, and is legally bound to maintain his wife; (v) the Family Court's conclusion was right and the award neither arbitrary nor perverse. Point answered in the negative; appeal dismissed and the decree confirmed.

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8636 OF 2016 (FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. T. B. RAMAKRISHNAN @ SRIRAM, S/O. T.R. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT "SHIVA ILLOM", SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, KERALA-673 592.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MATHEW, P.M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. ANJANA PATTABIRAMAN. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.1065T, FORTUNA MEADOWS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SUMAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2016 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 428/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(a) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

¶18

¶19

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶20

THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶22

CAV JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

¶24

This appeal is filed by the respondent directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Family Court'), in M.C.No.428/2014.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

¶26

The petitioner-wife filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and harassment.

¶27

The respondent denied the allegations made against him and against his parents. He admitted his

¶28

¶29

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶30

relationship with the petitioner. He further contended that

¶31

the petitioner had an extra-marital relationship with another person and when this was objected to, she fabricated the story of cruelty and harassment. There were no justifiable grounds for the petitioner to seek for a divorce and he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The Family Court held the trial and recorded the evidence of both the parties. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P19. The respondent examined three witnesses as RW-1 to Rw-3 and marked Exs.R1 to R7. The Family Court after hearing both the parties framed the following points for consideration:

¶33

i) Does petitioner proves that the respondent has treated her with cruelty?

¶34

ii) If a decree is to be passed whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent alimony and if so quantum thereof?

¶35

iii) What order?

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶38

The Family Court has discussed materials

¶39

available on record, answered the above point No.1- In the affirmative, point No.2 -Partly in the affirmative and allowed the petition in part. The Family Court by the impugned order granted a decree of divorce and also directed the respondent to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/-. Respondent-husband being aggrieved by the award of permanent alimony has filed this appeal.

¶40

Notice was served on the respondent, but she remained unrepresented.

¶41

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and anxiously perused the records.

¶42

This appeal is concerned only with the award of permanent alimony. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider point No.1 decided by the Family Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the petitioner has been working as a software technician at TCS. She has an independent source of income. On the

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶45

contrary, the respondent - husband has left his job in the UK and is presently residing in his native place at Wayanad, Kerala. He has no source of income to pay such a substantial amount as permanent alimony. The Family Court did not consider these facts and has erroneously awarded permanent alimony. Therefore, it was prayed to set aside the said orders.

¶46

PW-1 in her evidence has consistently stated

¶47

that after marriage, as directed by the respondent and his parents, she left her job and continued her education in UK. In her cross-examination, the fact that she left her job has not been disputed by the respondent. To appreciate said contentions, it is necessary to extract relevant portion of cross examination of PW-1 i.e. at paragraph No.6, page No.23, which reads as under:

¶48

"It is true that after marriage till date I have not employed anywhere. It is not true to suggest that I come from a financially sound family. I am seeking permanent alimony of Rs.1 crore since I quit the job/my employment at the instance of the respondent and in-laws. For my future maintenance with a status of the respondent which he promised by this marriage and for the loss and for my sufferings. It is not true

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶51

to suggest that I have voluntarily left my job. Since I was doing my masters degree in Warwick University, I did not take any job after I started staying separately. I have completed my course during January 2014, I did not take a job from January 2014 till today since my mother had a heart attack and admitted in the hospital and I was to take care of her".

¶52

The above said evidence clearly indicate that

¶53

she was not doing any job during the pendency of the divorce proceedings before the Family Court. Even in the evidence of respondent-RW1, it has not been disputed that, after marriage, the petitioner left her job. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellanthusband that petitioner was working as Software Engineer in TCS, was not established before the Family Court and no reliable evidence was placed on record to prove the said fact.

¶54

In the statement of assets and liabilities furnished by the respondent, he has stated that he was not doing any work and had no source of income. He further contended that his wife was employed in "Cognizant Company", USA as per the linkedin profile

¶55

¶56

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶57

sheet. The said profile sheet was not enclosed with the statement of assets and liabilities though it is mentioned therein but during the arguments, the said document was placed on record. The said document is not proved by any cogent evidence. It is a copy of profile sheet, which is said to be of the respondent-wife available on the web page. As stated in the above paragraphs, even during her crossexamination it was not suggested that she was working in Cognizant, USA, nor were any materials placed by the respondents to establish that she was employed in a Company and was earning her own income. Hence, this fact was not proved.

¶58

Considering the contentions of the parties, status of both families and their educational qualification, place of residence prior to and after marriage, the Family Court has awarded permanent alimony. The fact that her father was supporting her cannot be a ground to deny her right to claim maintenance.

¶59

The contention of the respondent that he left his job in UK and is now residing in his native place

¶60

¶61

MFA No. 8636 of 2016

¶62

without any employment is not acceptable. He had not led any believable evidence in this regard. He is legally bound to maintain his wife. During the course of trial, he admitted that he was employed in UK. Being well qualified, it is difficult to believe that he is currently unemployed. It appears that just to avoid his liability to pay alimony, he is contending that he is unemployed. Therefore, the said contention is not acceptable. The Family Court has considered the materials available on record and has arrived at a right conclusion. This does not call for any interference since it is neither arbitrary nor perverse.

¶63