Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shashikala . G vs Sri. Hanumantharayappa on 9 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1655, 2019 (4) AKR 770
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.29159/2015 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHASHIKALA G.
W/O SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
DASANAPURA HOBALI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 162.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
S/O L. HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/A MOTAGONDANAHALLI,
SRIRAMPURA COLONY,
SOLUR HOBALI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 120.
RESPONDENT
( BY SRI GAJENDRA S. ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.MISC.
No.198/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT
BENGALURU AND FOR DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE
AWARD OF INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF Rs.1,500/-
AWARDED BY THE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY
COURT JUDGE AT BENGALURU ON I.A. No.1 FILED IN
CRL.MISC. No.198/2014 DATED 03.06.2015 AS PER
ANNEXURE 'A' TO THE PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The wife filed the present writ petition for enhancement of interim maintenance against the order dated 03.06.2015 on I.A. No.2 in Crl. Misc. No.198/2014 on the file of 1st Additional Principal Judge holding concurrent charge of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, awarding Rs.1,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application.
3
2. The present petitioner - wife filed Crl. Misc. No.198/2014 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking direction to the respondent - husband to pay permanent maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month contending that the marriage between herself and the respondent - husband was solemnized on 25.04.2004 in Vinayaka Kalyana Mantapa, Siddanahosahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, as per the Hindu rites and customs. The husband - respondent is holding landed properties bearing: Sy. No.53/2B2 measuring 02 Acres 02 guntas situate at Lakshmipura, Dasanapura hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk; Sy. No.4/2 measuring 39 guntas situate at Vemmanahalli, Solur hobli, Magadi Taluk; janjar No.5 measuring 32 * 29 , 28 * 15 and 12.1/2 * 43 with tiles building situate at Madanayakanahalli, Dasanapura hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and janjar No. measuring 40 * 60 with building situate at Motagondanahalli, Solur hobli, Magadi Taluk as per document Nos.5 to 8 4 produced before the learned Judge of Family Court. She further contended that she could not maintain herself as she had no independent source of income for her livelihood. The respondent has bounden duty to maintain her. She further contended that the respondent - husband has succeeded to the family properties and getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/- from the said properties and he is employed in a private firm and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, she is entitled to maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.
3. The respondent - husband filed objections denying the averments made in the petition and admitted the marriage between the parties. He further contended that the petitioner - wife had stayed at matrimonial home only for some time and subsequently, she started picking up quarrel with him and his parents and used to run away to her parental house time and 5 again. He further contended that the petitioner - wife deserted him for more than nine years from 25.05.2005 without any reason and the present writ petition is filed only with a view to harass him. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The petitioner - wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from the respondent - husband during the pendency of the main petition reiterating the averments made in the petition. The application was opposed by the husband.
5. The learned Judge, Family Court considering the application filed by the petitioner - wife and objections filed by the respondent - husband, by the impugned order, has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the petitioner - wife from the date of filing of the application. Hence, the present writ petition is 6 filed by the wife for enhancement of interim maintenance.
6. The respondent - husband has not filed any writ petition challenging the order awarding interim maintenance passed by the learned Judge, Family Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
8. Sri Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. The husband is having landed properties and is capable of maintaining the petitioner - wife. The petitioner - wife is not having any means for her day-to-day livelihood. The learned Judge, Family Court, has passed the order awarding only Rs.1,500/- as interim maintenance, which is insufficient to cover the needs of the petitioner - wife in these hard days. It is further contended that the respondent - husband is having landed properties and is 7 working in a Firm. The learned Judge, Family Court ought to have granted interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month as sought for by the petitioner - wife in the application. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
9. Per contra, Sri S. Gajendra, learned counsel for the respondent, sought to justify the impugned order.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 25.04.2004. It is the specific case of the petitioner - wife that the respondent - husband is having sufficient income from the landed properties and he is working in a private Firm and deserted her without paying any maintenance. Therefore, she filed the application for grant of interim maintenance. It is the specific case of the respondent - husband that the wife herself deserted 8 him without any reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that the revenue records indicate that they belong to the respondent - husband.
11. The respondent - husband contended that the property stood in the name of his father. No document was produced by the wife to prove that the respondent - husband is earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working in a private Firm. The documents produced by the respondent - husband in respect of the landed properties indicate that the same also stood in the name of the father of the respondent - husband. The payment vouchers issued by the Firm, reveal that the respondent
- husband is being paid salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Judge, Family Court was of the view that the income of the husband is to be considered as Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly, awarded interim 9 maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the petitioner - wife.
12. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent - husband has not produced any documentary evidence before the Court to show that the petitioner - wife is capable of maintaining herself. The respondent - husband except stating that the petitioner
- wife herself deserted him and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance, has not taken any other contention. It is not the case of the respondent - husband that he is not earning any amount. The respondent - husband except stating that the petitioner
- wife herself has deserted him, has not taken any contention about the income of the petitioner - wife.
13. In the absence of any material document produced by the respondent - husband to show the income of the petitioner - wife, it is the bounden duty of 10 the husband to maintain his wife under the provisions of Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C., who is unable to maintain herself. The learned Judge of Family Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent - husband has produced the payment vouchers issued by the Firm to show that he is drawing about Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned Judge of Family Court has considered the revenue documents, which clearly depict that the respondent's father's name is shown in respect of the landed properties, but the fact that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife has been ignored.
14. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of BHUWAN MOHAN SINGH v. MEENA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 while considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in para No.3 of its judgment has held as under:
"Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the 11 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 12 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."
15. In the circumstances stated supra, grant of interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- is meagre / not sufficient to maintain the petitioner - wife. Therefore, the Family Court has to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh's case (referred supra) and taking into consideration the day-to-day suffering of the wife when the marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Therefore, the matter requires to be remitted to the 13 Family Court for reconsideration of the matter for further enhancement of interim maintenance in view of the law laid down by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh's case (referred supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the husband is young and energetic and he is bound to maintain the petitioner - wife.
16. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. The order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge holding concurrent charge of V Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A. No.2 in Crl. Misc. No.198/2014 insofar as it relates to non-granting of interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month as prayed for by the petitioner - wife in the said application is set aside without disturbing the interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month awarded by the learned Judge of Family Court to the petitioner - wife. The matter is 14 remanded to the Family Court with a direction to reconsider I.A. No.2 in the light of the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh's case (referred supra) and taking into consideration the properties of the respondent - husband or his father and pass appropriate order for enhancement of interim maintenance strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma