Sri Subraya V Manja vs Smt Rajalaxmi on 7 October, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Subraya V Manja vs Smt Rajalaxmi on 7 October, 2009

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THES THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2099
BEFORE _ ' H' V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N. .  
R.I2F.C.130/2§é)07:'-:.' . I.  M u

Clw. , 
R.P.F.C. 120'/2007v_ "

IN RPFC. 130[07
BETWEEN:

SR1 SUBRAYAV. MAN_JA.'--.  . .7
S /o. LATE _v EN1<ATAs'L1EE'A,,L"--.. ' "
AGED 5:1)  -' 
 KRU_PA_.   
BEs1DEsi_PT§EsIDEN~CfY_ COLLEGE.
SALA(}_AME  BAGADERA KOPPALU,
HASSAN'-s5.73201,-"'"-.    

... PETETEONER

[By  K. VI¢\IARAE1M'HA1§1 ADVOCATE)

~. '1..VTw/'O.'_is_U'E'RAYA V. MANJA.
'  AGED "ABOUT 42 YEARS.

 

R/O. C'/O.  SHNA.
15? MAIN. 181" CROSS, s. s. LAYOUT,

 ~ : 4_ 'B' BLOCK, DAVANGERE.



2. PRATHAMA MANJA S/O. SUBRAYA V. MANJA,

AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR AND HE IS REP.
BY HIS NEXT FRIEND / MOTHER: SMT. RAJALAXMI,
R/O. C/O.  SHNA,

IST MAIN, 15*" CROSS, S. S. LAYOUT,
'B 'BLOCK, DAVANGERE.

 RESI3c>N*IjEI5I"rS

(By Sn'. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE    *

THIS RPFC FILED U/S ]..I9{4}_ A '.§':\.41'_\{E&IL'I%fuVV
COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER-AIDT;AI*EDA..'2o;0f2:2Qa?'
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.129/2006r.(jN-- THE ,FrII'.fIV3:  '
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS   FI'.MjiLY":Vv"MCOiJRT, O'

DAVANGERE, PARTLY i'ALLowSI1.\fG._fI'I~InE PIa:'rI<I:I'QI\I?U/S. I25
CR.P.C. SEEKING FOR   _
RPFC.120[2007 I '  *' "  

BETunEE1\I:'_'I'~  V V

1. SW', RAJAIAVKAIIII'  
W/0': SUBRAYA7V;' MANJA,
HINDU," AGED= ABOUT 42 YEARS.

 -  ,2'  S/O. SUBRAYA V. MANJA,

 ACIEII.-_5~~YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HIS
_ '"NA1?IJEJ=x3_. 'QUARDLAN AND MOTHER:
  IISII/IT;'_~vIf<A;1AI,AX1\/II W/O. SUBRAYA V. MANJA,
._ 'B0'1'.I~i'AF<'E R/AT. C/O. RAMAKRISIINA 1ST MAIN,
 1'5T'CROSS, S. S. LAYOUT. 'B' BLOCK.
DAVANGERE577502.
  PETITIONERS

' ={_By~-- SI1. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY. K. ADVCOATE FOR R-1]



SR1 SUERAYA V. MANJA
S/O LATEVENKATASUBBA.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
R/O. KESHAVA KRUPA,
BESIDES PRESEDENCY COLLEGE,  »
SALAGAME ROAD, BAGADERA KOPPALU,__= 
HASSAN--573 201.   _ 
 _ :.;;"msI>OIIDENfr "
(By Sri. K. V. NARAsIMHAN,ADVOcA'rE)« I  " e .  
THIS RPFC FILED U/S 19(4) 
AGAINST THE ORDER DATEv'D._20.0-7,2007-,_P;AssED IN * '
cRL.1v1:Isc.NO.129/2006 ON TIIEEILE EJUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, DAvAN.GEP;E,V_  ALLOWING THE
I:>E'm*ION FILED U/s."I'25' 'OE'  -SEEKING FOR

  ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY,_T'r~{E 'COURT»_DE:LIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

V is filed by the husband to set aside tfie 'G«rdeIj"gi7;=nAnti11g maintenance to the I-RespOndent (his é LU;'f.€}'&I'1:€l'~_IIGR€Sp0nd€I1t (his chiid). E I W. L/GAL rm ,

2. RPFC120/2007' is filed by the wife and child to enhance the maintenance awarded by the trial court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties,_m"'.

4. Before adverting to controversialﬂfnctﬁi. necessary to state certain admiftheid "facts, f011ows:- y I 0 it it I 0 The marriage bet\Neen*..:th.eb parties' on 06.07.2001. They lived. "period "or£ou.§5 months. The wife conceived and i.vt0.':'her.:Parents' house for delivery and confinemerit.' -- 3 to a child on 07.06.0002; named 'Prathama Manja' (II- Responde"nt__iie1 petition]. It is the case of the wifegthat her ~ husband had refused and neglected to husband has contended that he had not "'re'I"u_sed"a.fid_ neglected to maintain his wife and child and in fact';._ he__"has"' filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. L/' "

fxi :

5. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence on record has held that the husband had refused--.._and neglected to maintain his Wife and child. The learried:"g:'t.r£a.l judge taking into consideration of salary certificate'has:"held's V' that the husband was drawing gross it and his take home salary was Rs.4:'942l_g/l--".'ll The judge, taking into consideratiarfdeductions_gand'repay£hent " it of loans shown in salary has "h.6:_1d_. that the husband is liable to . at the rate of Rs.2,000/-- p.m._.t.ovg.the,WifeL. at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-- the of petition.

'1-he .hnefore'lthis court and has sought to set asidelthe oriclerilwhereas the wife on her behalf and._a1so. on behéif of her child, has filed the petition for :Ae11hva12cenA1.ent'««.of maintenance inter alia contending that the l"ina-iiitenance v.afw'arded is inadequate, more particularly, in 'Overseas ll Bank. Bangalore and his gross salary is 1--f;s--.»2o',so2/--. 4,\.- ~ View of.«.y'the:"'fact that the husband is working in Indian

7. 1 have heard Sri Sanath Kurnar Shetty. learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K. V. Narasimhan,vV.1e.arned counsel for the respondent/ husband. 0 it

8. The learned counsel for husb_and--u_._:

evidence of the wife, would submit fithe. been always ready and w1'11ing*to__.take" ; the wife had refused to join Withou-t reasonable cause. The Wife has had sent certain amount her and had written seVera1"Ietters ;=ea11iné up:on.V"he_;7VVf0to join him. The learned sdublmit the circumstances. the trial court 'ought0'notd'to...:\h»a\+*e held that the husband had refused and'"r:eVg1eet'edA"toVfnaintain his wife. As, could be seen from the records, the mamiage ;3a1'ties was solernnized on 06.07.2001. During Octobef 2001, his wife conceived and she went to her parents'--*house for delivery and conﬁnement. She gave birth 0' 'Ato'*a--rnale child on 07.06.2002. The husband has produced

-3/\,.. -

demand draft, is not sufficient to draw an inference that the husband had not refused and neglected to maintain hiishlwife.

9. There is no evidence on record to show f1':he, husband had taken any steps for wellwbeinglvjof. child} b Therefore, ﬁndings of the trial cou:rtAAfthaltl.vtl3.e refused and neglected to maintain Wife and:l(:_hil'd 'can not be found fault with. i.

10. REGAR£)!NG;_Q¥IANfl?lI1\_;/§_.M()Jt1'l MAm'mNArtcE:-

The trial court has of Rs.2,000/-- pm. to the wife and Rs,:.1';00O'/--Vp.rn_._ '.thei'.child. As per the contents certiﬁcate for the month of April V drawing gross salary of Rs.2o.so2/9?;-V AfterA"vded.ucti0ns towards LIC premium, V' .APro{rlEie1_1t Fund, festival loans and income tax, his take home :.4Rs:.Vc¥,.942/~. The trial court has held that the husl5and.l.hacV_s;;been paying installments from the satary ' _ towards payment of festival loan. E E1. The salary certificate shows deductions of Rs.15,957/- and his take home salary as deductions towards severai loans raised . contributions, LIC premium, repayment «loan installments. The learned counsel fO1j._tl'i€€ '4'hu{sba.nd'~'w_ou11d.A submit that the elder sister of the husban.d is ; cancer. Therefore. he had borrovred loans'-a'nd'v'rep'aying the same through salary has not produced any medical incurred for the treatrn;":nttLQ:iI"-sister. had allowed substantiali'paift"eofV. 75% of his salary) as it GPF contribution and repaymeiitllof be said that the maintenance should be at€2*a.rded to Athelﬁrife and child proportionate to the '~ horne salaryrl T'r1'e'trial court has ignored this fact. had not produced salary certificate as on the date of petition. During the pendency of petition, if Vlphltheophusband had raised several loans to reduce his gross . it salary: that can not be a ground to proportionately reduce the 10 maintenance payable to his wife and child. Therefore, considering the conduct of husband and his gross saiargr, the amount required for maintenance of the wife * upbringing of the child, I determine maintenanee' V' the wife at a sum of Rs.3,00O/f..~p.m.A ll payable to the child at a sum husband is liable to pay the the * V L' date of this order. A A A l L T I V

13. In the result, ommt "V{i'1':« l by: the " V pp ~.is__ dismissed;

___4(1'i}_ /42007 filed by the wife V _ l&'child is accepted in part:

ﬁliii} The respondent/husband is l n l directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/-- p.m. to the Wife (Petitioner No.1) and Rs.2,000/~ p.m. to the child [Petitioner No.2} from the date of this order and at = J ﬂﬁgéﬁgﬁy RKK/--

(iv) 11 rate granted by the trial court from the date of petition till the date of this order;

Parties are directed to bear. V V' costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court