Karnataka High Court
Smt. Roopa W/O Mrutyunjay Hiremath, vs Dr. Mrutyunjay S/O Veerayya Hiremath, on 15 February, 2016
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.110227/2015 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN
SMT. ROOPA W/O MRUTYUNJAY HIREMATH,
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: "RUDRANI NILAY", 2ND MAIN ROAD,
BASAV COLONY, BAUXITE ROAD,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH.B. RAWOOT, ADV.)
AND
DR. MRUTYUNJAY S/O VEERAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:DOCTOR,
R/O: KESARALLI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI AND
HOSARITTI "ANNAPURNA CLINIC",
OPP. BUS STAND, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2015, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI ON I.A. NO.2 IN M.C. NO.69/2013
NEW NO.222/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE
I.A.NO.2 AS PRAYED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
The wife filed the above writ petition against the interim order dated 08.01.2015 on I.A. No.II made in Matrimonial Case No.69/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Haveri, dismissing her application for maintenance under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. The respondent/husband filed Matrimonial Case No.69/2013 under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner/wife for divorce. During the pendency of the proceedings, the present petitioner/wife filed application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- and for litigation and travelling expenses Rs.30,000/-. The said application was resisted by the respondent/husband by filing the objections on 09.06.2014.
3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, by his impugned order dated 08.01.2015 has rejected the application for grant of interim :3: maintenance and litigation expenses filed by the wife. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Shri Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the wife for maintenance and litigation expenses is without any basis and learned Judge erred in holding that the petitioner is able to maintain herself and she is not entitled for maintenance. It is further contended that it is the duty of the husband who filed petition for divorce to pay litigation expenses and interim maintenance during the pendency of the matrimonial case. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Shri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and contended that earlier Matrimonial Case No.15/2001 filed by :4: the husband under the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed by the Civil Judge, Haveri. Against the said order, the present petitioner/wife filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22464/2009 before this Court and it was ended in a compromise petition. Thereafter, the wife filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.164/2001 for domestic violence against the husband and it was rejected and thereafter, the husband filed Matrimonial Case No.69/2013 for divorce and it is further contended that the present petitioner/wife also filed Civil Petition No.586/2013 to transfer Matrimonial Case No.69/2013 from Haveri to Belgaum. It was rejected by this Court and subsequently, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.35120/2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 04.06.2015 allowed the petition and transferred Matrimonial Case No.69/2013 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri to the Family Court at Belgaum. Now the matter is pending before the Family Court, Belgaum in Matrimonial Case No.222/2015. Therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order :5: passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the maintenance as well as litigation expenses.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the husband filed Matrimonial Case No.69/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Haveri and ultimately in pursuance of the order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.35120/2014 now the said case is transferred to Belgaum and it is renumbered as Miscellaneous Case No.222/2015. The Trial Court considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner/wife is a reader in KLE University's Sri.B.N.Kanakawad Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Shahapur, Belgaum and she is getting handsome salary of Rs.4,01,525/- per annum and ultimately the interim appellation filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Belgaum in Criminal Miscellaneous No.248/2013 came :6: to be dismissed on 01.08.2015. Against the said order, CRP was filed before this Court and same is pending. The Family Court also recorded a finding that the husband is a private practitioner and the wife is able to meet out the litigation expenses and also liable to look-after herself and her son. Therefore, the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is untenable.
9. The petitioner/wife filed application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance and litigation expenses. A reading of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, clearly indicates that where in any proceeding under this Act, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. Provided that the application :7: for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.
10. The application filed under Section 24 is nothing but maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings are concerned. In the present case, it is not the case of the wife that she had no independent income to maintain herself and her son and she is not working as reader in KLE University's Sri.B.N.Kanakawad Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Shahapur, Belgaum and she is not getting handsome salary of Rs.4,01,525/- per annum. The wife has not produced any material documents to prove that the said income is not sufficient to meet her litigation expenses or to maintain herself and her son during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, this is not a case to grant maintenance and litigation expenses exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. :8:
Considering the entire material on record, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. No interference is called for under writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh