Karnataka High Court
Smt Manjula S vs Kotresh on 10 February, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRAURY, 2017
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
R.P.F.C.No.38/2015
BETWEEN:
Smt.Manjula.S
@ Manjamma
W/o Kotresh
Aged about 30 Years
R/at: No.P6,
Police Quarters
Near Aruna Talkies
Davanagere 577003. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.P.Rudrappa, Advocate)
AND:
Kotresh
S/o Late Basappa Karilingapla
Aged about 37 Years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Basavanakote
Jagalur Taluk
Davanagere District 5770034. ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri.Mahesh.R.Uppin, Advocate)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
27.12.2014 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.188/2014 ON THE
FILE OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY
2
ALLOWING THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the Family Court at Davanagere in Crl.Misc.No.188/2014.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 12.05.2003 at Karegudihalli as per the Hindu rites and customs. It transpires that due to the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent, the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and started living at her parental house. The respondent appears to have contracted the second marriage by neglecting the petitioner. There are allegations and counter allegations made between the 3 parties. But the petitioner approached the family court at Davanagere seeking for the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent. The family court after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, directing the respondent to pay from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking enhancement of maintenance.
3. The learned counsel Sri.Rudrappa.P, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the family court is too meager. The respondent owns 7 acres of land and he is earning sufficient income. Despite the same, neglecting the petitioner, he has contracted second marriage. The petitioner being un-employed and unable to maintain herself, filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, before the family court at Davanagere against the respondent seeking monthly maintenance. The 4 family court ought to have considered the sufficient means of income of the respondent while fixing the monthly maintenance amount. The monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- is inadequate to the maintenance of the petitioner in the wake of escalation of prices and the present cost of living. Accordingly, he seeks for enhancement of the monthly maintenance awarded by the family court.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri.Mahesh.R.Uppin appearing for the respondent supporting the impugned judgment and order, would contend that the respondent is an agriculturist and the lands owned by the respondent are joint family properties. No independent source of income of the respondent is established by the petitioner to seek for enhancement of monthly maintenance. Considering the factual matrix of the case, the family court awarded just and reasonable maintenance, which cannot be found 5 fault-with. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court is, whether the quantum of monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the family court from the date of petition, directing the respondent to make the payment is just and reasonable?
7. It is well settled legal position that the maintenance amount has to be awarded keeping in mind the source of income of the spouse, conduct of the parties and other attending circumstances, particularly the status of the spouse. The monthly maintenance amount is awarded to protect the wife from vagrancy and destitution, when she is unable to maintain herself. The maintenance amount must be just and proper at 6 least to provide the basic necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter. It is an indisputable fact that the respondent is owning about 6 acres of land as could be evidenced from Ex.P-2. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be reasonable to enhance the monthly maintenance to Rs.2,500/- as against Rs.1,500/- awarded by the family court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Hence, the petition is allowed enhancing the monthly maintenance to Rs.2,500/-. The respondent shall pay monthly maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner from the date of the petition. The petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC/akv