Karnataka High Court
Sri Shanthappa S/O Late Rudrappa vs Smt. S Gunasagari @ S Geetha on 18 September, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
M.F.A. NO.6341/2012 (FC)
C/W
M.F.A. CROB NO. 40/2014(FC)
IN M.F.A. NO.6341/2012 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHANTHAPPA
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.IDK 59B,
NEW COLONY, BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA DIST-577301.
WORKING AT:
VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED,
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
FORGE PLANT EMPLOYMENT
NO.506072, GRADE-S10,
DEPARTMENT: MECHANICAL-FP.
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri: GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV FOR
2
M/S KUMAR & BHAT ASSTS.)
AND:
1. SMT. S GUNASAGARI @ S GEETHA
W/O SRI S SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.695/9, M S SIDAPPALAYA
BEHIND PADMA TALKIES
1ST MAIN, B B GARDEN ROAD
MYSORE-570004
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301.
3. THE MANAGER PERS (W-OPERATIONS)
VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: P.MAHESHA, ADV. FOR R1,
R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED )
MFA FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:16.12.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.32/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
MYSORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR MAINTENANCE
FILED U/S 26 R/W ORDER 7 RULE 1 OF CPC.
IN M.F.A. CROB NO. 40/2014
BETWEEN:
SMT S GUNASAGARI @ S. GEETHA
W/O SRI S. SHANTHAPPA,
3
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT # 6695/9,M.S. SIDAPPALAYA,
BEHIND PADMA TALKIES,
1ST MAIN, B.B. GARDEN ROAD,
MYSORE 57004
... CROSS OBJECTOR
(By Sri./Smt : P MAHESHA)
AND:
1. SHANTHAPPA
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT # IDK 59B,
NEW COLONY, BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577301
WORKING AT:
VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED,
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE
FORGE PLANT EMPLOYMENT
NO.506072, GRADE-S10,
DEPARTMENT: MECHANICAL-FP.
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT,
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED,
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LIMITED
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577301
3. THE MANAGER PERS (W-OPERATIONS)
VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT,
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED,
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LIMITED
BHADRAVATHI,
4
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 577301
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV FOR
M/S KUMAR & BHAT ASSTS.)
MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.6341/2012 FILED U/O 41 RULE
22 OF CPC, R/W SEC.19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:16.12.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.32/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
MYSORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT, FILED U/S 26 R/W
ORDER 7 RULE 1 OF CPC, FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON
FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal and cross objection are filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.32/2009 dated 16.12.2011 by the learned Single Judge of the Family Court, Mysore.
2. The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking maintenance reads as under:
"O.S.32/2009 is decreed in part, holding that, the plaintiff/wife is entitled for maintenance at the 5 rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. directing the first defendant/husband to pay maintenance to the plaintiff/wife as quantified above from 19.6.2006 (the date on which she filed Mis.9/2006) during her lifetime.
Defendants 2 and 3 are hereby directed to send Rs.2,59,097/- (after deducting incometax if any), to this Court, so as to enable this Court to disburse the said amount to the plaintiff to meet her urgent medical needs as discussed in the body of the judgment.
The defendant is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff towards the cost of this proceedings."
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge of the Family Court, the defendant No.1/husband has filed MFA 6341/2012 and plaintiff/wife has filed cross objection No.40/2014 seeking enhancement of maintenance.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/husband has vehemently contended that quantum of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Family Court is excessive. It is 6 further contended that a sum of Rs.2,59,097/- has already been paid to the wife by defendant Nos.2 and 3, employee of the appellant on behalf of the appellant/husband and the same will have to be adjusted towards the maintenance calculated. It is further argued that the said amount cannot be considered outside the purview of the maintenance.
5. We are unable to accept the said contention. Maintenance not only includes food, shelter and clothing it also includes provision for requisite medical needs. The plaintiff/wife was ill suffering from serious ailment. Considering her serious ailments, the learned Judge has directed defendant Nos.2 and 3, employer of the appellant/husband to send the amount of Rs.2,59,097/- so that same could be utilized towards her medical needs. This amount so sent will have to be considered as amount spent towards medical expenses and cannot be adjusted towards arrears of maintenance.
7
6. So far as financial capacity of the appellant is concerned, he had been allotted 4 acres of land at a partition that took place in the year 1972-73 vide registered partition deed dated 4.5.1972 vide Ex.P-3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/husband before this Court that out of 4 acres of land situated in R.No.233/1 Kunduvada Village, R.S.No.181/1 and 156/2 of Shabanur village, two acres of land have already been acquired for the formation of tank. If two acres of land has already been acquired, the appellant has received the compensation as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Apart from this, he has put up a new house in Davanagere, Vidyanagar Extension as evident from Ex.P-11 and 12, which are the invitation and photo in regard to new housing ceremony at Davananger. This also discloses the financial capacity of the appellant/husband.
7. Ex.P-1 discloses that he had purchased the site bearing 30x50ft and this further supported by encumbrance 8 certificate marked at Ex.P-2. The properties that are owned by the appellant are within the purview of Davanagere Municipal Corporation. Admittedly Davanagere City is called as the Manchester of Karnataka since many cotton mills were in existence. Apart from this, it is a very important commercial city and several reputed educational institutions are there. It has got connectivity both through road as well as railways. The properties in question have come within the purview of the Davanagere Municipal Corporation and are valuable properties. They are abutting the national highway i.e., Golden Quadri Lateral Highway. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the Trial Court has properly analysed the evidence in right perspective and has adopted right approach to the real state of affairs.
8. Taking into consideration the fact the plaintiff/wife is entitled to be maintained by the defendant No.1/husband, according to his status, the Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. There is no reason 9 to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Trial Court. Hence the appeal filed by the husband is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER MFA 6341/2012 is dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree passed in O.S.32/2009 dated 16.12.2011 by the learned Single Judge of the Family Court, Mysore.
MFA CROB 40/2014 is dismissed as not pressed. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DM