Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sunilkumar S/O Ramu Chouvan vs Smt. Shobha W/O Sunilkumar Chouvan on 21 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958
WP No. 106739 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 106739 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103707 OF 2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 106739/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHOBA W/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUHAN,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
2. SMT. MAITALI D/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUHAN
AGE. 19 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT,
3. SMT. ANJALI D/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUHAN
AGE. 16 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
4. SRI SAIRAM S/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUHAN
Location: High AGE. 14 YEARS,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench OCC. STUDENT,
5. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUHAN
AGE. 10 YERAS,
OCC. STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR,
2ND CROSS,
NADAGOUDA LAYOUT,
BAGALAKOTE 587101.
SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.3 TO 5 ARE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN
NATURAL GUARDIAN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958
WP No. 106739 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023
SHOBHA W/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUHAN
(PETITIONER NO.1)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. SUNILKUMAR S/O RAMU CHOUVAN
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. PRESENTLY WORKING
AS DY. RFO, DISTRICT FOREST DEPARTMENT
BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.M.KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO,1. ISSUED WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO ORDER DATED 03.03.2023 IN
CRL.MISC.NO. 26/2021 IN ANNEXURE F PASSED ON IA NO.4
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BAGALKOTE
(ANNEXURE-F) AND MODIFIED THE ORDER BY ENHANCING THE
INTERIM MAINTENANCE AS CLAIMED IN IA NO.4, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 103707/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUNILKUMAR S/O RAMU CHOUVAN
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. PRESENTLY WORKING
AS DY. RFO, DISTRICT FOREST DEPARTMENT
BALLARI- 582101.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.M.KALWAD AND
SRI. JAYAVANT KAMBALLI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. SHOBA W/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUVAN,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
2. MAITALI D/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUVAN
AGE. 19 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT,
3. ANJALI D/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUVAN
AGE. 16 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958
WP No. 106739 of 2023
C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023
OCC. STUDENT,
4. SAIRAM S/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUVAN
AGE. 19 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT,
5. JAYALAKSHMI D/O SUNILKUMAR CHOUVAN
AGE. 10 YERAS,
OCC. STUDENT,
THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 5 BEING MINORS,
R/BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN
I.E., PETITIONER NO.1.
R/O: VINAYAK NAGAR,
2ND CROSS,
NADAGOUDA LAYOUT,
BAGALAKOT- 587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO,1. ISSUE A WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2023 MADE ON IA NO.4 IN
CRIMINAL MISC.NO.26/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPLE
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BAGALKOTE.
THESE PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioners in both these cases are husband and wife. The 1st petition in WP No.106739/2023 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance and the companion petition is filed by the companion the husband -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 seeking reduction of maintenance so granted by the concerned Court at Rs.13,000/-.
2. Facts in briefs which are adumbrated are as follows:
The petitioner's herein get married on 03.07.2002.
After the marriage and from the wedlock there are 4 children, 3 daughters and son. The petitioner the husband works as a Range Forest Officer. The wife is said to be a homemaker, but the husband would contend that the wife runs a beauty parlour and therefore she is earning quite.
The issue in the lis is after the relationship between the husband and wife floundered and on such floundering of the relationship, the wife institutes proceedings seeking maintenance at the hands of the husband in Criminal Miscellaneous No.26/2021 invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The concern Court grants maintenance at Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- each to the children.
The wife is before this Court seeking enhancement both for herself and for the children. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner's wife takes this Court through -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 the assets and liabilities statement filed by both the husband and the wife to demonstrate that they husband is a Range Forest Officer and as per the salary slip is Rs.62,785/- and therefore the amount of maintenance awarded at Rs.13,000/- is on the lower side.
3. The learned counsel for the husband would contend that the petitioner's wife runs a beauty parlour and she is not in need of any money and has the capacity of taking care of the children and would seek dismissal of the petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
5. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve into deep in the matter. This Court in W.P. No.2688/2023 C/w. W.P. No.24296/2022 disposed on 1st September 2023 held as under:
"13. The concept of grant of maintenance has been the subject matter of plethora of proceedings before the Apex Court. Maintenance to be paid to the wife is trite, that it is not maintenance for mere existence; it is for a living. Living would -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 be in consonance with the varying cost of living or cost of expenses
14. Now, what is to be noticed is. whether the wife would be entitled to any enhancement of maintenance. The Apex Court in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN1 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs 17,654. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs 2000. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs 2000 per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent 1 (2015) 5 SCC 705 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-
bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
15. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC p. 12, para
8) "8. ... The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316:
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , it has been ruled that:
(SCC p. 320, para 6) -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 "6. ... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v.Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."
17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.
18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus : (SCC OnLine Del para 7)
7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that sustenance of a woman does not and cannot mean mere survival. A woman, who is -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 constrained to leave the matrimonial house, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from the grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. The Apex Court holds that the quantum of maintenance should be qua the life she was leading with her husband. In a later judgment the Apex Court in the case of REEMA SALKAN v.
SUMER SINGH SALKAN2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
13. Be that as it may, the High Court took into account all the relevant aspects and justly rejected the plea of the respondent about inability to pay maintenance amount to the appellant on the finding that he was well educated and an able- bodied person. Therefore, it was not open to the respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his wife. It would be apposite to advert to the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which reads thus : (Reema Salkan case [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9380 : (2018) 250 DLT 16] , SCC OnLine Del paras 80-84) "80. The respondent during the cross-examination has admitted that he too is BCom, MA (Eco) and MBA from Kentucky University, USA; the respondent is a Canadian citizen working with Sprint Canada and is earning Canadian $(CAD) 29,306.59 as net annual salary. However, he has claimed that he has resigned from Sprint Canada on 23-11-2010 and the same has been accepted on 27-11- 2010 and the respondent since then is unemployed and has got no source of income to maintain himself and his family.
81. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the case under Section 125 CrPC, 1973 for grant of maintenance as she does not know any skill and specialised work to earn her livelihood i.e. in 2 (2019) 12 SCC 303
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 Para 26 of maintenance petition against her husband. However, the respondent husband who is well educated and comes from extremely respectable family simply denies the same. The respondent husband in his written statement does not plead that he is not an able-bodied person nor he is able to prove sufficient earning or income of the petitioner.
82. It is an admitted fact emerging on record that both the parties got married as per Hindu rites and customs on 24-3-2002 and since then the petitioner was living with her parents from 10-8-2002 onwards, and the parents are under no legal obligation to maintain a married daughter whose husband is living in Canada and having Canadian citizenship. The plea of the respondent that he does not have any source of income and he could not maintain the wife is no answer as he is mature and an able-bodied person having good health and physique and he can earn enough on the basis of him being able-bodied to meet the expenses of his wife. In this context, the observation made in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] by this Court is relevant and reproduced as under : (SCC OnLine Del para 7).
'7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able- bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child.'
83. The husband being an able-bodied person is duty-bound to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself under the personal law arising out of the marital status and is not under contractual obligation. The following observation of the Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200 : AIR 2014 SC 2875] , is relevant : (SCC p. 357, para 2) '2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.'
84. The respondent's mere plea that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife in presence of good physique along with educational qualification."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 (emphasis in original)
14. The view so taken by the High Court is unassailable. Indeed, the respondent has raised a plea to question the correctness of the said view, in the reply-affidavit filed in this appeal, but in our opinion, the finding recorded by the High Court is unexceptionable.
15. The only question is : whether the quantum of maintenance amount determined by the High Court is just and proper. The discussion in respect of this question can be traced only to para 85 of the impugned judgment which reads thus : (Reema Salkan case [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9380 : (2018) 250 DLT 16] , SCC OnLine Del) "85. So far the quantum of maintenance is concerned, nothing consistent is emerging on record to show the specific amount which is being earned by the respondent after 2010, however, the husband is legally bound to maintain his wife as per the status of a respectable family to which he belongs. The husband being able-bodied along with high qualification BCom, MA (Eco) and MBA from Kentucky University, USA could earn at least minimum of Rs 18,332 as per the current minimum wage in Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner being wife is entitled to Rs 9000 per month from 9-12-2010 onwards till further orders."
16. The principle invoked by the High Court for determination of monthly maintenance amount payable to the appellant on the basis of notional minimum income of the respondent as per the current minimum wages in Delhi, in our opinion, is untenable. We are of the considered opinion that regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent and his family, his past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal of the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until 2015; coupled with the fact that a specious and unsubstantiated plea has been taken by him that he is unemployed from 2010, despite the fact that he is highly qualified and an able-bodied person; his
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 monthly income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was over Rs 1,77,364; and that this Court in Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 312] has prima facie found that the cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant is granted an interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month commencing from 1-11-2014. At this distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between the parties, we are inclined to direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs 20,000 per month to the appellant towards the maintenance amount with effect from January 2010 and at the rate of Rs 25,000 per month with effect from 1-6- 2018 until further orders. We order accordingly.
17. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay the enhanced maintenance amount, as determined in terms of this order, to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from today after duly adjusting the amount already deposited in Court/paid to the appellant till date. The appellant will be entitled to forthwith withdraw the maintenance amount deposited by the respondent in Court, if any. The impugned judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified in the aforementioned terms."
(Emphasis supplied) Here again, the Apex Court directs that the quantum of maintenance should be determined on the basis of manifold factors, more particularly, the spiraling inflation rate, and high cost of living index of the day, as also the husband being able-bodied man and his earning is enough and more to take care of the wife
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 and child as the case would be.
15. The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, has directed consideration of enhancement of maintenance on a case to case basis. Due regard should be had to certain relevant factors like social status of the parties and the kind of life that the wife and son were living while they were all staying together. It is not luxury life style that can be demanded by the wife. When the husband is or has been in the realm of luxury lifestyle, the wife and the son, in the considered view of the Court, cannot be left in the lurch. If the husband has been living a good life, the wife cannot be asked to lead a life which is lower the life than that of the husband that too taking care of the needs of herself and education of her son. There is no warrant to interfere with the awarding of a sum of ₹75,000/- as maintenance by the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 01-10-2022. Hence, Writ Petition filed by the husband in Writ Petition No.24296 of 2022 is to be rejected.
16. On the bedrock of the aforesaid principles that are laid down by the Apex Court, if the case at hand, is considered qua the assets and liabilities statement of both the husband and the wife, it would become a case for enhancement of maintenance; not to the extent that the wife seeks in the petition, but to a certain extent, as the qualification of the wife cannot be brushed aside. Her plea that she has no avocation would not mean that she is incapable of getting an avocation and added to that she has sustained herself all along. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant enhancement of maintenance
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 owing to the aforesaid facts, assets and liabilities statements of parties qua their qualification, from ₹75,000/- to ₹1,50,000/- per month and litigation and educational expenses of the son from the date of filing the application before the concerned Court."
6. Therefore, in the said circumstances and owing to the salary of the father, the husband at Rs.62,785/-, I deem it appropriate to enhance the maintenance to be paid to the children from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- each which would be total amounting to Rs.20,000/- as the couple, have 4 children from the wedlock, and so far is the wife is concerned the contention of the respondent-
husband that she runs a beauty parlour and can sustain herself is partially acceptable. But the maintenance that is already awarded at Rs.5,000/- cannot be considered and shall continue to be paid.
7. Therefore in all, the wife and the children would become entitled to total maintenance of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.13,000/- that is awarded by the concerned Court.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:958 WP No. 106739 of 2023 C/W WP No. 103707 of 2023 The Writ Petition No.103707/2023 is filed by husband seeking reduction of maintenance stands rejected on the reasons rendered in the companion petition.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10