Karnataka High Court
Sri K Thimmappa vs Smt Suchitra on 21 November, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
R.P.F.C.No.114/2011 C/W R.P.F.C.No.119/2011
RPFC No.114/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri K.Thimmappa
S/o K.Hanumanthappa
Aged about 52 Years
Profession : Principal
Government Women's College
R/at Door No.M.I.G.35
K.H.B.Colony, Gandhinagar
Bellary - 583 101. ...Petitioner
(By Sri P.Dhananjaya, Advocate)
AND:
Smt.Suchitra
D/o Somashekarappa
W/o K.Thimmappa
Aged about 36 Years
Private Employee
R/at Door No.1675/9
Taralabalu Extension
Davanagere - 577 004. ...Respondent
(By Sri B.Dinesh, Advocate)
2
RPFC No.119/2011
BETWEEN:
Smt.Suchitra.S
D/o. Somashekarappa
W/o. K.Thimmappa
Aged about 36 Years
R/at Door No.1675/9
Taralabalu Badavane
Davanagere - 577 005. ...Petitioner
(By Sri B.Dinesh, Advocate)
AND:
Sri K.Thimmappa
S/o K.Hanumanthappa
Aged about 53 Years
Principal : Women's College
R/at Door No.M.I.G.35
K.H.B.Colony, Gandhinagar
Bellary - 583 101. ...Respondent
(By Sri P.Dhananjaya, Advocate)
These petitions are filed under section 19(4) of Family
Court Act, against the order dated 03.09.2011, passed in
Crl.Misc.No.247/2010, on the file of the Judge, Family Court
at Davanagere, partly allowing the petition and etc.
These petitions coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioner in RPFC No.114/2011 is the husband of petitioner in RPFC No.119/2011. RPFC No.114/2011 is filed by petitioner to set aside the order of grant of maintenance. RPFC No.119/2011 is filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance allowance.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner in RPFC No.114/2011 and I have gone through records.
3. The marriage between petitioner and respondent has been admitted. It is also not in dispute that respondent lived with petitioner in RPFC No.114/2011 for a short time. Thereafter, parties are living separately.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner in RPFC No.114/2011 would submit that respondent has failed to prove that petitioner had refused and neglected to maintain her. Therefore, petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance allowance.
4
5. It is true that parties are living separately. If petitioner has a grievance that respondent has deserted him without lawful cause, petitioner has to pursue remedy under relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner, without taking recourse to the aforestated provisions of law cannot contend that he is not liable to pay maintenance. Therefore, there is no merit in RPFC No.114/2011.
6. RPFC No.119/2011 is filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance.
7. The learned trial Judge has granted maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is seen from the evidence on record that petitioner in RPFC No.119/2011 is a divorcee, before her marriage with respondent and respondent was a widower. The respondent has a son and a daughter through his first wife. After the death of first wife, respondent married the petitioner in RPFC No.119/2011. 5
8. It is seen from records that petitioner had received permanent alimony of Rs.1,10,000/- under decree for divorce wherein, marriage of petitioner with her first husband was dissolved. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, salary of respondent and responsibility of respondent to take care of his children through first wife, I am of the considered opinion that maintenance allowance granted at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month cannot be termed as inadequate. Therefore, there is no merit in RPFC No.119/2011.
9. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER RPFC No.114/2011 & RPFC No.119/2011 are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN