Karnataka High Court
Smt Sruti W/O Kirankumar @ Kiran Mudhol vs Kirankumar @ Kiran S/O Siddramesh ... on 5 December, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
RPFC NO.529 OF 2011
CONNECTED WITH
RPFC NO.527 OF 2011
IN RPFC No.529/2011
BETWEEN:
KIRAN KUMAR @ KIRAN
S/O SIDDHARAMESH MUDHOL
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL
H.NO.29, KRANTI KRUPA
SHANTI NAGAR, GULBARGA ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI USTAD SADAT HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRUTI W/O KIRAN KUMAR @
KIRAN MUDHOL
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O C/O PARAMANAND B.
GUNDANNAVAR
HOUSE NO.27/2
NEAR LINGAD TEMPLE
CHALUKYA NAGAR, BIJAPUR ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.M. PATEL GULHALLI, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FC ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.02.2011
PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.367/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BIJAPUR. WHEREIN PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. AND THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED
TO THE MAINTENANCE AT THE RATE OF RS.7,500/- PER
MONTH FROM THE RESPONDENT FROM THE DATE OF THE
JUDGEMENT.
IN RPFC No.527/2011
BETWEEN:
SRUTI W/O KIRANKUMAR @
KIRAN MUDHOL
AGE: 24 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
R/O C/O PARMANAND B.
GUNDANNAVAR
HOUSE NO.27/2
NEAR LINGAD TEMPLE
CHALUKYA NAGAR, BIJAPUR ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.M.PATEL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KIRANKUMAR @ KIRAN
S/O SIDDRAMESH MUDHOL
AGE: 37 YEARS
OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER & BUSINESS
R/O HOUSE NO.29, KRANTI KRUPA
SHANTI NAGAR, GULBARGA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI USTAD SADAT HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE)
THE RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FC
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 11.02.2011 PASSED IN
3
CRL.MISC.NO.367/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT AT BIJAPUR. WHEREIN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C. AND THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE
MAINTENANCE AT THE RATE OF RS.7,500/- PER MONTH FROM
THE RESPONDENT FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
RPFC No.529/2011 is filed by the husband and RPFC No.527/2011 is filed by the wife.
2. The Court below having found that the husband has neglected to maintain his wife, has awarded maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month by considering the probable income of the husband.
3. Husband is a Software Engineer by profession. He has worked in United States of America for some time and has come back to India. Now he is living in Gulbarga. According to the husband, he does not have any job as of now.
4
Wife is still a student. She was studying M.Sc. during the pendency of the matter before the Court below. She has also joined Computer Training Course at NIIT.
4. Sri Ustad Sadat Hussain, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband submits that wife has completed her M.Sc. course and she is now able to take up the job and get herself maintained independently. On the other hand, husband is without any job, though he is qualified.
Advocate for the wife is absent. Perused the records.
5. It seems, husband as well as wife has come from affluent family. Both are educated. As aforementioned, husband is a Software Engineer capable of doing lucrative job. So also, wife has 5 completed her M.Sc. and has taken Computer Training Course in NIIT. She is also in a position to earn. At the time of grant of maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month by the Court below, wife was not earning and was still a student. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met if wife is awarded with maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month with effect from today.
6. Accordingly, the following order is made:
The order of the Court below is modified. Maintenance amount is reduced to Rs.6,000/- per month from Rs.7,500/- per month with effect from today.
It is open for both the parties to file applications either for reduction of maintenance or for enhancement 6 of maintenance under the changed circumstance in future before the Family Court.
It is made clear that the observations made by the Family Court relating to the adjustment of the amount awarded by the JMFC under the provisions of the Protection of the Women from the Domestic Violence Act shall hold good and continue.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
NB*