Karnataka High Court
Smt Poornima C vs Sri S R Prakash on 15 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 235
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.P.F.C. No.47 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Poornima C
W/o. S.R. Prakash
Aged about 35 years.
2. Master S.P. Prajwal
S/o. S.R. Prakash
Aged about 16 years.
3. Kumari Tejaswini
D/o. S.R. Prakash
Aged about 10 years.
Since petitioner No.2 and 3 are minor
Represented by his natural guardian and
Mother Smt. Poornima
All are resident of Maruthinagar
1st Link Road, Tumkur Town,
Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur District- 577 101.
..Petitioners
(By Sri.M.B. Ryakha, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. S.R. Prakash S/o. Rudraiah
@ Akki Rudraiah,
Aged about 43 years
RPFC No.47/2017
2
Resident of Swandenahalli,
Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District-577 101.
.. Respondent
(By Smt. Manjula D., Advocate)
****
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act,
praying to call for records in C.Misc.No.99/2014 on the file of the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru and to allow the
Revision Petition filed by the petitioners and thereby set aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 16-01-2017 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumkuru in C.Misc.No.99/2014 and
enhance the maintenance, etc.
This RPFC coming on for Final Hearing, through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the wife and children of the respondent, seeking for enhancement of maintenance. The first petitioner is the wife and petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively are the son and daughter of the present respondent.
2. The present petitioners had filed a petition under Section 125 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Cr.P.C") in Criminal Misc.No.99/2014 in the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Family Court") against RPFC No.47/2017 3 the present respondent seeking maintenance at the rate of `25,000/- each per month from him.
3. The matter was contested by respondent herein.
4. After contest, the Family Court, by its judgment dated 16-01-2017 dismissed the petition filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 and allowed the petition of the petitioner No.3 and awarded maintenance at the rate of `3,000/- per month from the date of petition till the date of her marriage. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners No.1 and 2 have sought for setting aside the order of dismissal of their petition and allowing their petition filed in the Family Court, whereas petitioner No.3 has sought for enhancement of the maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
5. The respondent herein is being represented by his learned counsel.
6. The Family Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the previous date of hearing, i.e. on 13-01-2021 has confined the present petition only to petitioner No.3 against the respondent and he submitted that he RPFC No.47/2017 4 would not press the petition of petitioners No.1 and 2. In the light of the said submission, the scope of present petition was confined only to consider the prayer of petitioner No.3 for enhancement of maintenance. Accordingly, the arguments were heard from both side, confining the scope of the present petition as the one for enhancement of maintenance filed by the present petitioner No.3 only.
8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Family Court's records.
9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this petition is:
Whether the judgment under revision is perverse, illegal and erroneous warranting interference at the hands of this Court?
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his argument submitted that the respondent is a practicing Advocate at Tumakuru having put up not less than a practice of two decades and has got lucrative income from his profession. He further submits that he RPFC No.47/2017 5 has also got landed properties of not less than about six acres from which land, he earns sizeable income. According to the learned counsel, the annual income of the respondent would be any amount not less than `16.00 lakhs. He also submits that the petitioner No.3 is now studying in VIII standard and pursuing her education in a private Institution, where the tuition fee is also high and the maintenance amount awarded in favour of petitioner No.3 in no way matches to her requirement.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent who is appearing through video conference submits that respondent is ready to take care of petitioner No.3 i.e. his daughter, as such, there is no necessity for enhancement of the maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
12. In the Family Court, the petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6. The respondent got himself examined as RW-1 and also got marked documents from Exhibits R-1 to R-13. The respondent even attempted to show that the house that was constructed was sold by his wife as the sole owner of the house and has collected a sum of RPFC No.47/2017 6 `45.00 lakhs towards its sale consideration. In view of considering all these aspects, the Family Court has held that the petitioner No.1
- wife is not entitled for any maintenance, but the said act of the alleged sale of the house by petitioner No.1 would not be an excuse for the respondent to pay maintenance to her daughter who is the present petitioner No.3. It is considering the said aspect, the learned learned Family Court has ordered maintenance payable by the respondent to petitioner No.3, which is at the rate of `3,000/- per month from the date of petition till the date of her marriage.
Therefore, the only point that remains now is to see whether the said quantum of `3,000/- per month awarded as maintenance payable to the present petitioner No.3 by the respondent is a reasonable amount in the circumstances of the case.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.3 is now studying in VIII standard in a private School and the contention of the petitioners is that the monthly school tuition fee itself is `5,000/- excluding the amount towards the school uniform, study material and various other incidental expenses, etc. Though learned counsel for the respondent contends that the said tuition RPFC No.47/2017 7 fee is being borne by the respondent, but nothing is placed before this Court to accept the said contention of the respondent. Admittedly, petitioner No.3 is staying away from the respondent and she has continued to stay with her mother. Therefore, if at all the respondent is really and actually paying her tuition fee, then, he would have necessarily come up with documents including the tuition fee receipts, to show that he has been paying the tuition fee amount. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, petitioner No.3 incurs more expenses than the maintenance awarded in her favour by the Family Court appears to be genuine and requires to be favourably considered.
14. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is a practicing Advocate who is said to have put up a practice of not less than twenty years. It is also not in dispute that the family of the respondent owns agricultural lands which is evident from the five RTCs which are at Ex.P-3. Though the said RTCs go to show that no crop has been grown in one particular year, but the fact remains that the respondent has got agricultural landed property also. Exs.P-4 to P-6 further go to show that the respondent owns a car RPFC No.47/2017 8 and two motor cycles in his name. That means, he has got a good practice and good source of income so that he can maintain a car and two motor cycles and that he has also got income from agricultural sources.
15. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.3 is pursuing her studies in a private educational institution and studying in VIII standard. Considering the quantum of tuition fee which is said to have required to be paid and other incidental expenses she is required to meet, I am of the view that the amount of `3,000/- per month as maintenance ordered by the Family Court is far less than the reasonable amount. As such, in my considered opinion, there is necessity to enhance the said maintenance amount.
Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as analysed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER [i] The petition of the petitioners No.1 and 2 stand dismissed as not pressed;
[ii] The petition of the petitioner No.3 - Kumari Tejaswini, D/o. S.R. Prakash, Aged about 10 years, RPFC No.47/2017 9 since minor, represented by her natural guardian and mother Smt. Poornima, resident of Maurthinagar, 1st Link Road, Tumkur Town, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur District
- 577 101, is allowed in part;
[iii] The order dated 16-01-2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru in Criminal Misc.No.99/2014, awarding a maintenance of `3,000/- per month to petitioner No.3, is modified and the said amount is enhanced at a sum of `9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Only) per month.
[iv] The rest of the terms of the impugned order dated 16-01-2017 passed by the Family Court remains unaltered.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Family Court along with its records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*