Karnataka High Court
R L Surendrababu vs Smt Shashikala on 3 June, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18840
RPFC No. 116 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 116 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
R.L. SURENDRABABU,
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH,
DOING PETTY BUSINESS,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT MARAGANAGUNTE (V),
GULURU (H), BAGEPALI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. TEJASWINI V., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O R.L. SURENDRA BABU,
D/O VIJAYASHEKARA GUPTHA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
GEETHAKUMARI R/O SRI. T. NARAYANAPPA,
PARLATTAYA S 7TH DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
Location: High Court
of Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARINATH M.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2021
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.102/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125
OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18840
RPFC No. 116 of 2022
ORDER
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 9.12.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapur in Crl.Misc.No.102/2012.
2. Ms.Tejaswini, counsel appearing for Sri Shankarappa.S, learned counsel for revision petitioner-husband submitted that petition was filed by respondent-husband against order passed in an application filed by respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.102/2012. It was submitted that marriage of revision petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 11.5.1990 at Gulur as per Hindu custom. Due to marital discord between couple, respondent/wife left revision petitioner and began residing with her parents. Subsequently, she filed M.C.No.107/2021 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chikkaballapura, seeking for divorce. During its pendency, she filed application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.221/2013 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chikkaballapura and same was allowed on 19.02.2015 directing revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to respondent-wife. Aggrieved thereby, revision petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision Petition -3- NC: 2024:KHC:18840 RPFC No. 116 of 2022 No.6183/2016 before this Court which by order dated 20.08.2019 reduced quantum of maintenance from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. Subsequently, respondent herein/wife filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.102/2021 for enhancement of maintenance. It was submitted though revision petitioner was a petty businessman and land owned by him were dry lands yielding not more than Rs.8,000/- p.m., learned Judge was not justified in granting monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to the respondent-wife. It was further submitted by revision petitioner that basis for claiming enhancement was sufferance of paralysis stroke by respondent even prior to disposal of Criminal Revision Petition no.6183/2016. Therefore, fixation of quantum of maintenance at Rs.4,000/- by this Court would have to be held good even in case of respondent having suffered paralysis stroke and therefore, there was no justification for enhancement. In the meanwhile, she also prays for an interim order of stay of the impugned order.
3. On the other hand, Sri.M.S.Harinath, learned counsel for respondent-wife opposed petition. It was submitted, it was a fact that respondent/wife had suffered paralysis stroke during the year 2018 and though same was prior to disposal of -4- NC: 2024:KHC:18840 RPFC No. 116 of 2022 criminal petition filed before this Court, the effect of paralysis was escalating with her age necessitating higher medical expenditure. Taking note of same, trial Court had granted maintenance. It was further submitted apart from running petty business, revision petitioner-husband was also possessing other properties received by him in family partition and therefore, revision petitioner's claim of meager income was not substantiated. It was further submitted that trial Court had taken note of peculiar facts and circumstances of case while passing impugned order. Hence, same does not call for any interference.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the impugned order.
5. From above, point that would arise for consideration is, whether impugned order calls for interference?
6. From above, relationship between parties is not in dispute. In view of orders passed in earlier petitions, claim of respondent-wife for maintenance and petitioner's liability to pay same cannot be disputed. While petitioner herein contends -5- NC: 2024:KHC:18840 RPFC No. 116 of 2022 that fixation of monthly maintenance by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6183/2016 at Rs.4,000/- p.m. did not call for any interference and there was no justification for enhancement, respondent-wife submits that enhancement of monthly maintenance is necessitated by reason of old age and medical expenses.
7. Perusal of order impugned would reveal that petitioner suffered paralysis stroke. Same would deter her from earning livelihood and render her dependent on others for sustenance. Taking note of fact that respondent-wife was residing in rented house at Bagepalli and taking note of escalation in cost of basic necessities, trial Court has enhanced monthly maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.9,000/-. While fixing said amount, trial Court has taken note of exhibits P.2 to P.5, RTC extracts, wherein it disclosed land holding by revision petitioner. Revision petitioner is admittedly owner of house property. Even though revision petitioner is doing petty business, amount of Rs.9,000/- awarded by trial Court as monthly maintenance to respondent-wife cannot be stated to be either without any basis or excessive. Petitioner was compliant with earlier order determining monthly maintenance at Rs.8,000/- -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:18840 RPFC No. 116 of 2022 until its reduction in criminal petition. Therefore, fixation of monthly maintenance at Rs.9,000/- would be justified. Hence, I do not find any just or good reasons to interfere with impugned order.
Petition is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, application is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54