Karnataka High Court
B R Anitha vs B Maruthi on 18 December, 2018
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
R.P.F.C. No.118/2013 c/w R.P.F.C. No.101/2013
R.P.F.C. No.118/2013
BETWEEN:
1. B R ANITHA
D/O RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2. MANJUNATH
S/O B. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
3. YASWANTH
S/O B. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
BOTH PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3
BEING MINORS REPRESENTED
BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. ANITHA
i.e., PETITIONER NO.1.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT LIC COLONY
BEHIND NUTAN COLLEGE
VIDYANAGAR ROAD
DAVANAGERE- 577006.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK KUMAR M C, ADV. FOR SRI R KOTHWAL, ADV.)
2
AND:
B MARUTHI
S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
FDA, DISTRICT EDUCATION
TRAINING INSTITUTE
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PREMISES
DAVANAGERE 577 002.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAVI H K, ADV.)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY
COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED
IN CRL.MISC.287/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.127 OF Cr.P.C.,
R.P.F.C. No.101/2013
BETWEEN:
B MARUTHI
S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
FDA, DISTRICT EDUCATION
TRAINING INSTITUTE
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL PREMISES
DAVANAGERE 577 601.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI H K, ADV.)
AND:
1. B R ANITHA
D/O RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3
2. MANJUNATH
S/O B. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
C/O RESPONDENT NO.1
3. YASHWANTH
S/O B. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
C/O RESPONDENT NO.1
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1-3
ARE ALL RESIDING AT LIC COLONY
BEHIND NUTAN COLLEGE
VIDYANAGAR ROAD
DAVANAGERE- 577601.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK KUMAR M C, ADV. FOR
SRI R KOTHWAL, ADV. FOR R1
R2 & R3 MINORS REP. BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY
COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED
IN CRL.MISC.287/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.127 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THESE R.P.F.C.s COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
RPFC No.118/2013 is filed by the wife and minor children seeking enhancement of maintenance whereas RPFC No.101/2013 is filed by the husband seeking to set aside the 4 enhancement of maintenance under the impugned order dated 21.08.2013 passed in Crl.Misc.No.287/2012 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Davanagere.
2. Parties would be referred to as their ranking in RPFC No.118/2013.
3. The first petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are children of the first petitioner and respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the first petitioner with respondent. Out of their wedlock, petitioners 2 and 3 are born. Due to differences of opinion, the husband and wife, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.84/2008 and after enquiry, divorce petition came to be allowed granting decree of divorce between the first petitioner and respondent. The respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.110/2007 seeking interim custody of minor children and the said petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.Misc.38/2007 seeking maintenance which was allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m., to the 5 first petitioner and Rs.1,000/- p.m., to petitioners 2 and 3 each. Subsequently, the petitioners filed Crl.Misc.287/2012 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. to each of the petitioners from the respondent/husband who is a Government Employee working as First Division Assistant in Education Department.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after divorce, the respondent contracted second marriage and he has a daughter out of the second marriage. Further he submits that, apart from wife and daughter, the respondent has to look after his aged mother. The trial Court has recorded that at that point of time, the respondent was drawing salary of Rs.23,470/- p.m. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 3rd petitioner is suffering from hemophilia and he requires constant medical treatment for which, the first petitioner has spent more than Rs.50,000/- in the year 2011 and more than Rs.68,000/- in the year 2012. 6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners had sought for enhancement of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each, per month, but the trial Court has enhanced maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- for the first petitioner and from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- for petitioners 2 and 3 which is not sufficient. No doubt, the first petitioner is burdened with the educational expenses of petitioners 2 and 3 and also for the treatment to the third petitioner who is suffering from hemophilia.
6. The respondent/husband is a Government Employee drawing salary of more than Rs.30,000/- p.m. He has also wife and daughter along with aged mother to look after. The trial Court, on appreciation and evaluation of evidence on record such as salary certificate, medical records, and school fee receipts has enhanced the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the first petitioner and Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- p.m., to the petitioners 2 and 3, which in my opinion is just and reasonable for the present. The 7 petitioners 2 and 3 at present are aged about 15 and 14 years respectively and their educational requirement would increase day by day. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to increase the education expenses from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- each per annum. The Educational expenses shall be paid during the month of May-June of every year. Further, as observed by the trial Court, if the first petitioner makes available the medical bills with respect to medical expenses incurred towards the ailment of the 3rd petitioner, the respondent shall make payment for those medical bills.
7. With the above observations, both the RPFC are disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE mpk/-* bms