Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma @ Lakshmi vs Sri G Veeresh Gowda on 23 July, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANANDA
RPFC NO.122 OF 2011 (C-MISC)
CONNECTED WITH
RPFC NO.127 OF 2010(C-MISC)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Gowramma @ Lakshmi,
W/o. G. Veeresh Gowda,
Aged about 33 years,
D/o. Bellary Sukanandappa,
4th Cross, Bethuru Road,
Davangere - 577 001 ...Petitioner in RPFC No.122/2011
(Respondent in
RPFC No.127/2010)
[By Sri.M.N. Umesh and
Sri.A. Madhusudhan Rao, Advs.)
AND:
Sri. G. Veeresh Gowda,
S/o. G. Bande Gowdru,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at. Narasapura Village,
Kalyanadurga Post,
Ananthapura District,
Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent in RPFC No.122/2011
(Petitioner in
RPFC No.127/2010)
(By Shri. K.G. Shantaraja, Adv.)
These RPFCs are filed Under Section - 19(4) of
Family Court Act against the order dated 11.10.2010
2
passed in C.Misc.218/2006 on the file of the Judge,
Family Court, Davanagere, partly allowing the petition
filed under Section - 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
These RPFCs coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
RPFC No.127/2011 is filed by the husband to set- aside the order of the grant of maintenance allowance to his wife. RPFC No.122/2011 is filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance allowance.
2. I have heard Shri. M.N. Umesh, learned counsel for the husband and Shri. K.G. Shantaraja, learned counsel for the wife.
3. The finding recorded by the trial Court that the husband has neglected to maintain his wife is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference.
4. The trial Court taking into consideration that the husband is an agriculturist and owns 6 acres of the land has awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month. The respondent has produced several 3 documents to show that the husband had obtained loan from Syndicate Bank by securing lands belonging to him. This fact has not been disputed.
5. Therefore, having regard to the occupation of the husband and uncertainties of agricultural income, I deem it proper not to interfere with the order of the grant of maintenance allowance and there are no grounds to reduce the rate of maintenance allowance granted by the trial Court. Therefore, the RPFC No.127/2011 filed by husband is dismissed.
6. Regarding claim for enhancement of maintenance allowance, it is necessary to state that the rate of maintenance allowance has been determined on the basis of material made available before the trial Court. As already stated, the husband is an agriculturist. Therefore, instead of enhancing rate of maintenance allowance, I deem it proper to reserve liberty to wife to file an application for enhancement of maintenance before the trial Court after bringing on 4 record, the changed circumstances, like escalation of the cost of living.
ORDER In the result I pass the following order:
RPFC No.127/2011 is dismissed. RPFC No.122/2011 is dismissed reserving liberty to the wife to make an application before the trial Court for enhancement of rate of maintenance granted in Crl.Misc.No.218/2008, if she is able to establish changed circumstances in her favour.
Sd/-
JUDGE JJ