Karnataka High Court
A.M. Sreedhara vs B.S.Revathi on 30 October, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38509
WP No. 12147 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 12147 OF 2020 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
A.M. SREEDHARA
S/O MAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O KASHIPURA MAIN ROAD
DEVARAJ URS NAGARA
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
B.S.REVATHI
D/O B.G.SINGAPPA
Digitally signed W/O A.M. SREEDHARA
by PADMAVATHI
BK WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER AT
Location: HIGH SAHYADRI ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL
COURT OF 100 FEET ROAD, RAJENDRANAGARA
KARNATAKA
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.NAGARAJU., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
SHIVAMOGGA ON I.A.NO.I FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38509
WP No. 12147 of 2020
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 IN M.C.NO.213/2018
DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY INTERIM
MAINTENANCE TO THE RESPONDENT AT THE RATE OF
RS.6000/- PER MONTH FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DISPOSAL OF THE PETITION AND LITIGATION
EXPENSES OF RS.10,000 IN M.C.NO.213/2018 PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 12-06-2020 passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga on I.A.No.1 filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) in M.C.No.213 of 2018 directing the petitioner/husband to pay his wife/respondent `6,000/- per month as interim maintenance and `10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Heard Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nagaraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, are as follows:-
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:38509 WP No. 12147 of 2020 The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The two get married on 28-06-2012. It is alleged that after about 7 months of marriage, the wife leaves matrimonial house on her own volition and after a few days later comes back to the matrimonial house and leaves the house once again in the month of January 2015. Long thereafter, the husband approaches the Family Court seeking annulment of marriage by filing a petition under Section 13(ia) and (ib) of the Act in M.C.No.213 of 2018. The wife, after receipt of notice, along with the objections files an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance at `12,000/- per month, Advocate fee of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of `6,000/-
. This was objected to by the husband and the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 12-06-2020 directs payment of interim maintenance at `6,000/- per month and `10,000/- to be the litigation expenses to the wife. Challenging this order the present petition is preferred by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the wife on her own deserted the matrimonial house and in such circumstance she would not -4- NC: 2023:KHC:38509 WP No. 12147 of 2020 become entitled to any maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. It is his further contention that the wife has also preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, but has not pursued it further. Several other contentions are urged including the one that he is not in a position to pay the wife maintenance or the wife herself is qualified and she is working. Therefore, maintenance should not be granted to the wife.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent refutes all the contentions urged by the petitioner and seeks enhancement of compensation as sought for in the application filed under Section 24 of the Act.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner and the respondent even today are legally wedded husband and wife as the petition seeking dissolution of marriage is pending consideration before the concerned Court. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the claim of the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:38509 WP No. 12147 of 2020 parties in M.C.No.213 of 2018. In the said petition the wife prefers an application under Section 24 of the Act. The concerned Court allows it and grants `6,000/- as maintenance and notices the fact that the wife was earlier working in a temporary job and getting a meager remuneration which also no longer subsists. The remuneration that she was getting as a temporary teacher in Sahyadri High School, Shivamogga was `6,000/-. Documentary evidence to that effect was also produced before the Court. Noticing the qualification of the respondent, the concerned Court does not allow the application in its entirety but only partially and grants `6,000/- as maintenance and `10,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner if accepted would run foul of plethora of judgments of the Apex Court rendered on the issue. The Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1 has held as follows:
"10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 -6- NC: 2023:KHC:38509 WP No. 12147 of 2020 under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had -7- NC: 2023:KHC:38509 WP No. 12147 of 2020 failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2- son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife.
12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.
13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court -8- NC: 2023:KHC:38509 WP No. 12147 of 2020 has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.
14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him."
(Emphasis supplied) If the amount of maintenance that is granted to the wife on the bed rock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment is examined, what would unmistakably emerge is unsustainability of the challenge to the order passed by the concerned Court.
9. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 144