Karnataka High Court
Smt M V Rekha vs Sri D N Basavaraju on 13 January, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
RPFC NO.59/2015
C/W
RPFC NO.11/2015
IN RPFC NO.59/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.M.V.REKHA
W/O SRI N BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. KUMARI CHANDANA .B
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
3. ROHIT B.
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.
PETITIONER NOS.2 & 3
ARE THE DAUTHER & SON OF
SRI.N.BASAVARAJ,
PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN/
FIRST PETITIONER-MOTHER
SMT.M.V.REKHA.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDING AT D.NO.172/1,
2
SHANKAR MUTT ROAD,
FORT MOHALLA
MYSORE -570 004.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SOMASHEKAR, FOR
SRI C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI.D.N.BASAVARAJU
S/O SRI NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT VINAYAKA NILAYA
DOOR NO. 32, 6TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018.
AND PROPRIETOR:
'VINAYAKA FOOD PRODUCTS'
DOOR NO.33/3
RAILWAY STATION MAIN ROAD
BY THE SIDE OF PLASTIC FACTORY
NAYINDAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 039.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.GANGADHAR AITHAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
26.11.2014 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.458/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, AT MYSORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C.
IN RPFC NO.11/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI.D.N.BASAVARAJU
S/O SRI NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3
R/AT NO. 32, 6TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.M.V.REKHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O. SRI.N.BASAVARAJ.
2. CHANDANA.B
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
D/O.SRI.N.BASAVARAJ.
3. ROHIT.B
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.
S/O BASAVARAJ.
RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
1ST RESPONDENT
SMT.M.V.REKHA
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT
NO.172/1, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD
FORT MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, FOR
SRI C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVS. FOR R-1 & R-2
R-3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-1
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2014
PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.458/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, AT MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR
MAINTENANCE ETC.
THESE RPFCs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
RPFC No.59/2015 is filed by the wife and children seeking enhancement of maintenance and RPFC No.11/2015 is filed by the husband for reduction of maintenance, being aggrieved by the order of maintenance awarded by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Mysore, in C.Misc.No.458/2010 dated 26.11.2014, whereby, it was ordered that the husband shall pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- each per month to the children from the date of the petition.
2. Learned counsel for the wife and children submits that in the cross-examination before the Family Court, the husband has admitted that he is having four portion of houses, four vehicles, earning rental income so also, he is owning and running an industry employing few workers. Over all, the husband is earning Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per month. He also submits that the maintenance amount be enhanced as petitioner No.3 - minor son who is aged 17 years, is a student, who requires 5 considerable amount for his education and hence, the husband may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. To substantiate the same, he has relied on Exs.P.9 to P.11 and also emphasized on the admissions made by the husband in the cross-examination in C.Misc.No.458/2010.
3. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant. The wife and children relying on the fact that the husband is owning a factory, four portion of houses and four vehicles cannot be a good ground for awarding compensation as the husband is owing loan amount on vehicles and he has got liability on the factory. When the income of the husband is not proved, the facts narrated by the wife shall not be the basis for enhancement of maintenance.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the papers.
5. From the records, it is seen that a suit is filed by the wife and son for partition as they are entitled as per the partition deed which is still pending. The enhancement of maintenance is subject to the proof and production of the 6 documents and additional documents if any, with respect to the income of the husband.
6. I have gone through the materials available on record and found that the Family Court has relied on the income proof of the husband relied by the wife. No additional documents are placed to prove the income of the husband. Merely because the husband owns houses, vehicles and runs a factory, it does not mean that he is earning enormously. The term 'sufficiency of amount' is measured by quantum and it should be proved before the Court by producing additional documents. In this case, no such additional documents is produced and merely submitting that the husband are earning enormously or sufficient amount will not be a base for awarding maintenance. It is a vague and indefinite submission.
7. Petitioner - husband in RPFC No.11/2015 is seeking for reduction of maintenance. It shall also be noted at this juncture that, the daughter - petitioner No.2 has got married but the son - petitioner No.3 is still a minor, a student pursuing his education. He requires considerable amount for completing his education and so also, his day-to-day needs. 7 Coming to petitioner No.1, who is the wife has to look after herself and her son. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 both are dependent on the maintenance amount. The maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is just and proper and no good grounds are made out to interfere with the order.
8. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Family Court. Hence, both petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly they are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj