Mr Ravi Kumar vs Mrs Chitra R on 5 April, 2018

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Ravi Kumar vs Mrs Chitra R on 5 April, 2018

Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan

                            1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

       WRIT PETITION NO.1558 OF 2018 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

Mr. Ravi Kumar,
S/o Late K. Mohan Raj,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.754, 1st Floor,
9th Cross, 2nd Stage,
Indiranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 038.
                                           ...Petitioner
(By Sri.Shiva Shankar C, Advocate)

AND:

Mrs. Chitra R.,
W/o Ravi Kumar,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at 763, 9th Cross,
2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 038.
                                        ... Respondent

    This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 16.03.2017 passed on I.A.No.II in M.C.
No.4497/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family
Court at Bengaluru vide Annexure-'E' and etc.
                             2


     This writ petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

                         ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month to the respondent - wife from the date of filing the application, and has granted `5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month towards the litigation expenses.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 30.06.1996, according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. During the wedlock, in 1997, the couple was blessed with a daughter. However, subsequently differences arose between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner filed 3 a divorce petition against the respondent-wife based on cruelty. But, the same was dismissed by the learned Family Court. Aggrieved by the Family Court order, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court. However, the appeal was also dismissed by this Court.

3. Thereafter, the respondent-wife has filed an application under the Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner has submitted his objections in the said application. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Family Court, the respondent-wife has filed an application under Section 24 of the Act. After hearing both the parties, the impugned order has been passed granting the interim maintenance and litigation expenses as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. Mr.Shiva Shankar C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the respondent-wife was working as a Lecturer, she has sufficient means of looking after herself. Secondly, that since the petitioner is merely a driver, his income is not so high as to pay an interim maintenance of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month to the respondent-wife as awarded by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court.

5. Heard, the learned counsel for the respondent, perused the impugned order.

6. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the respondent-wife was working, there is no evidence produced by the petitioner before the learned Family Court to substantiate this plea. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish his plea that she continues to work during the pendency of the 5 proceedings. According to the respondent-wife, she is unemployed. Therefore, she is unable to take care of herself. Hence, the first plea raised by the learned counsel is clearly unacceptable.

7. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that he was merely working as a driver, and his income is so low to be unable to pay the interim maintenance of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. In fact, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence to show the type of work, and the income being earned by him. Thus, even the second contention is clearly unsustainable.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. Therefore, the petition is, hereby, dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Mds/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court