Karnataka High Court
Sri Dinesh S vs A Subramaniam on 5 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 2305
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.31440/2014 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Dinesh.S,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.96,
Nakshatra, 4th Main,
Shabarinagar Layout,
Hegdenagar,
Bengaluru-560 077. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Suhas.P, Advocate for
Sri. Ravikumar.M.C, Advocate)
AND:
A.Subramaniam,
S/o.Late M.Appadotai Midaliar,
Aged about 68 years,
Residing at No.204, 4th Main,
4th Cross, Jagadish Nagar,
New Tippasandra Post,
Bengaluru-560 075. ... Respondent
(By Sri. A.Rajesh, Advocate for
Sri. L.Harish Kumar, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the
impugned order dated 26.04.2014 passed by the 1st
Additional Family Court, in Crl.Mis.No.396/2010 on
I.A.No.2, as per Annexure-'A' filed by the respondent herein.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
2
ORDER
The aggrieved son filed the present writ petition against the order dated 26.04.2014 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Mis.No.396/2010 on I.A. No.2, awarding the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m., from the date of filing of application pending disposal of the main petition.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
3. The petitioner - father has filed the Crl.Mis.No.396/2010 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 10 of Family Courts Act for permanent maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses contending that the respondent is his son and the petitioner-father has brought up his son with love, care and affection. However, the petitioner's wife deserted him along with her son and eversince they are residing in a separate house with effect from 05.04.2014. The respondent's 3 mother had obtained divorce against the petitioner in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Family Court, Bengaluru and thereafter, at the ill-advise and instigation of the respondent's mother, the respondent - son has not bothered to assist the petitioner and at this age, the petitioner-father is alone without any support. Further, it is contended that the respondent-son is working as a Manager in multinational software company called DELL and is drawing a salary of about Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Now, the respondent-son is married and residing along with his mother ignoring the needs of the petitioner-father. Therefore, he sought for permanent maintenance and also contended that the petitioner-father has constructed a house during the year 1990-91 with his hard earned money, loans from various sources and eversince, he is residing in the said house. Knowing all these, respondent's mother - Smt. B. R. Kalyani has now filed a suit in O.S. No.3765/2009 pending before the Hon'ble Court to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the house property and also 4 to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent-son has not providing any maintenance to the petitioner-father and has not bothered to take care of his basic needs and necessities. Therefore, the petitioner-father had filed a petition.
4. The respondent-son has filed the objections denying the averments made in the petition and has contended that the petitioner-father was working in a public sector company i.e., ITI Limited. After having taken voluntary retirement, he has received more than Rs.15,00,000/- and has kept the amount in an interest earning deposit. The petitioner-father is well educated and a qualified advocate, who is engaged in professional consultancy and registered practitioner in Bar counsel of Karnataka and he has got sufficient means from his legal profession. It is further contended that the until the respondent-son was forced out of the family since 1995 the petitioner-father was providing Rs.300/- as monthly boarding and lodging expenses and used to save all the other earnings. The petitioner-father has 5 never treated the respondent as son and discharged the duties as a father. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. During the pendency of the said petition, the present respondent - father has filed an application for interim maintenance reiterating the averments made in the petition. The application was opposed by the present petitioner-son reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections.
6. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, the Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 26.04.2014 and allowed I.A. No.2, filed by the petitioner - father and directed the respondent - son to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of filing of the application pending disposal of the main petition. Hence, the writ petition is filed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6
8. Sri. Suhas P, learned counsel for the present petitioner-son contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- is without any basis. He further contended that there cannot be any presumption to the effect that the respondent has no source of income especially when a serious contention is urged that the respondent-father was gainfully employed in a Public Sector Company and had taken VRS with substantial money. Therefore, he is not entitled to any maintenance and also the question of granting maintenance would not arise. Further, it is contended that the respondent - father never took care of the present petitioner - Son and he is a practicing advocate therefore, there is no need to pay the maintenance. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order passed by the Family Court.
9. Per contra, Sri. A. Rajesh, learned counsel for the respondent - father sought to justify the 7 impugned order and has contended that the present respondent - father was the petitioner before the Family Court and is aged about 65 years, who is senior citizen, has not taken care in view of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, it is undisputed fact that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as father and son. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioner-son, who is respondent before the Family Court is working in DELL company and drawing a salary of more than Rs.1 lakh per month. Though the contention was raised that the present respondent- father is petitioner before the family Court, was working in a public sector company, after taking VRS, he received substantial amount about Rs.15 lakhs, therefore is not entitled for maintenance. The Family Court considering the entire materials on records, has 8 recorded a findings of the fact that at present, the respondent-son has not produced any documents to prove that the petitioner-father has invested his retirement benefits and he is earning income. The petitioner-father has stated that he is not getting any income from his profession and he is not practicing as an advocate. Under such circumstance, to hear the contention of both the parties, trial is required. The present petitioner/respondent being the son of the petitioner-father has an obligation and duty to maintain his father when he has got sufficient income to pay the maintenance. Accordingly, the Family Court considering the entire materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the present petitioner-son is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application pending disposal of the main petition.
11. The provisions of Section 125 (1)(d) of Cr.P.C. clearly depicts that his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, bound to pay the 9 maintenance. Admittedly, it is the specific case of the petitioner-father that he has no means for livelihood and it is not in dispute that his son is working in DELL company and drawing a salary of more than Rs.1 lakh. Though the contention was raised that the father also retired and is earning, but no document has been produced in this behalf before the Court. In the absence of any such documents, it is bounden duty of the son to maintain his father at his old age. Therefore, the Family Court is justified in granting the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and the same is in accordance with law. The petitioner-son has not made out any good ground to interfere with the order of the Family Court to exercise power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS