Karnataka High Court
Smt Janakamma vs Sri Hanumant Rao Kulkarni on 11 September, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
R.P.F.C.NO.12/2013
BETWEEN
SMT. JANAKAMMA
S/O HANUMANTHA RAO KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.150, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
V PHASE, W.C.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 010. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI HANUMANT RAO KULKARNI
W/O MALHAR KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER,
ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF GOA,
DIVISION III,
KURTI, PONDA -GOA
PRESENTLY WORKING IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
VIDYUTH BHAVAN,
3RD FLOOR,
-2-
TISAWADI, GOA-400301
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
7.11.12 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.307/2009 ON THE FILE
OF II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
U/S 127 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.Misc.307/2009 on the file of Family Court, Bangalore, has come up in this revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded in order dated 7.11.2012 passed in the aforesaid miscellaneous proceedings.
2. When this matter came up before the Court, it was admitted and lower court records were ordered to be secured. In the meanwhile, counsel for the revision petitioner filed an application bringing to the notice of this Court that the sole respondent - Hanumantha Rao Kulkarni, the husband of revision petitioner is retiring from service as -3- Engineer, Electricity Department, Government of Goa and also brought to the notice of this Court the apprehension of revision petitioner about the respondent stopping of maintenance payable to her once he retires from service. Therefore, even before his terminal benefits are settled, an appropriate order is sought to ensure that the maintenance if it is increased, would reach her safely without any obstruction even after the retirement of her husband - respondent. Accordingly, in that behalf, a preventive order was issued by this Court to the Electricity Department of Government of Goa to withhold settlement of terminal benefits of respondent herein until disposal of this petition filed by his wife.
3. When a preventive order was passed by this Court restraining settlement of terminal benefits to the respondent herein, the respondent through his counsel has filed an application seeking modification of the said order, which ultimately resulted in the parties approaching the Apex Court and the Apex Court directing the parties to approach the very Bench for any modification in that behalf. When -4- matter stood thus, with the consent of both parties, this revision petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. Before disposing off this revision petition brief facts leading to this revision petition are required to be placed on record. They are:
The marriage between revision petitioner and respondent has taken place on 23.4.1989. In the wedlock, they have a son by name Mithun. Admittedly, said son has attained majority and now said to be independently maintaining himself. It is seen that the marriage between revision petitioner and respondent herein was not going well, which has resulted in the petition for divorce being filed by the husband in MC.No.19/2003/A on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Quepem, Goa, wherein by judgment and decree dated 20.2.2008 the marriage between the parties to this proceedings is dissolved.
5. It is seen that even before MC.No.19/2003/A was filed, the husband and wife were already living separately since 1994. In the meanwhile, maintenance petition is filed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in -5- Crl.Misc.154/1998 on the file of Family Court, Bangalore, which was allowed in awarding maintenance in a sum of Rs.500/- to each of the petitioners in the said proceeding i.e., petitioner herein and her minor son. Subsequently, in Crl.Misc.553/2003 earlier maintenance was increased by another sum of Rs.400/- to the wife and Rs.300/- to the son. With this, the total maintenance was increased to Rs.1,700/- p.m., and same was subject matter before a coordinate bench of this Court in RPFC.No.118/2006, wherein the coordinate bench of this Court allowed the said revision petition by order dated 1.10.2008 in fixing the maintenance amount payable at Rs.1,000/- p.m., to the wife and Rs.1,250/- p.m., to the minor son considering his education requirement.
6. Thereafter it is seen that the revision petitioner herein filed another petition in Crl.Misc.307/2009 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., before the Family Court, Bangalore, wherein it was allowed by order dated 7.11.2012 in awarding maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m., and another sum of Rs.2,500/- p.m to their son. In the said -6- proceedings in Crl.Misc.307/2009 it was also made clear that the maintenance to son is until he attains majority and the maintenance awarded to wife is for life. Against said order dated 7.11.2012 the wife has come up in this revision petition.
7. As stated supra, an interim order was passed in this proceeding resulting in the employer of respondent herein being restrained to settle his pensionary benefits, which has resulted in this petition being now taken up for final disposal. Admittedly, in this revision petition wife is seeking enhancement of maintenance. The maintenance which was ordered to son has come to an end and he is no longer entitled to receive any maintenance. In this background, what is to be seen is the ability of respondent/husband to pay maintenance to the wife/revision petitioner.
8. The records would clearly disclose that the respondent is now retired and is a pensioner. His pensionery benefit, gratuity amount and other terminal benefits are not settled. His employer is waiting for -7- further orders from this Court. In that view of the matter, it is seen the maintenance amount awarded in the court below is also not paid, which is roughly for about 6 to 7 months prior to this day. Therefore, after giving careful consideration to the terminal benefits the respondent is likely to receive, also the financial ability and ability to maintain himself without the assistance of anybody taking care of him in his old age, this Court cannot be too harsh on him by unduly enhancing the maintenance amount that is required to be ordered.
9. When it comes to the revision petitioner/wife, the records would clearly indicate that her son is aged about 25 years. He has completed his education and it is also stated by the counsel for respondent that the said son is gainfully employed. Therefore, it is needless to say that now the responsibility of taking care of revision petitioner gets shifted on her son also, whose welfare she has taken care of from his birth to this day with the meager maintenance amount that she has secured from her husband for herself and her son. In that view of the matter, while fixing the maintenance -8- amount the present status of all the parties will have to be considered.
10. Therefore, in this background, when this matter is assessed, both the counsel appearing for the parties suggested to this Court that in the light of respondent getting terminal benefits in lump sum, why not the revision petitioner be provided a lump sum maintenance amount to ensure that she need not have to go back to respondent every time when there is failure to pay the maintenance, which he is required to pay on monthly basis. Therefore, taking that in to consideration this Court got the probable terminal benefits that the respondent/husband may get assessed from the Accounts Section of High Court.
11. After coming to know that the basic pension would be somewhere in the range of Rs.15,000/- pm., to Rs.16,000/- pm., considering the fact that the respondent is having serious ailments like heart problem for which he has to undergo open heart surgery as stated by the counsel for respondent in support of vacating the interim order, the -9- amount towards medical expenses that the respondent may require, the amount towards further continuous medical expenses after the heart surgery and all other miscellaneous expenses, this Court feel that if a lump sum maintenance of Rs.5,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the revision petitioner towards maintenance, which is likely to fetch annual returns of roughly around Rs.40,000/- per annum considering the present bank rate of interest at 8% pa., on Fixed Deposits for a period of 3 years above thereby getting roughly around Rs.3,300/- pm., as monthly interest as against Rs.2,500/- p.m., which is awarded by the court below, would be just and proper. In doing so viz., in awarding lump sum maintenance instead of awarding monthly maintenance, this court would also ensure that the revision petitioner/wife will not be put to inconvenience of filing execution petition, following up the same with the assistance of a counsel, visiting the Court at this ripe age where she is required to live a quite and peaceful life.
12. In fact, it is also necessary to take in to consideration that in addition to Rs.3,300/- pm., which she
- 10 -
would be getting as interim income per month, the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- will always be available to her to provide respite to her in any contingency. Further, in addition to this, the revision petitioner/wife is ensured of proper maintenance by her son, who has now reached the age of securing a job for himself, which according to the respondent, he has already secured and drawing a handsome salary. In this background, this Court feel that the present revision petition filed by the revision petitioner/wife seeking enhancement of maintenance can be disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. With the aforesaid observations, this revision petition is disposed of at the instructions of both the counsel appearing for the parties in indicating that the maintenance to the revision petitioner would be settled in lump sum, namely in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards maintenance to revision petitioner. While disposing of this revision petition with aforesaid terms, this Court would further direct the Government of Goa, which was earlier instructed by a prohibitory order not to release the
- 11 -
terminal benefits to respondent - Hanumanth Rao Kulkarni, Junior Engineer, Electricity Department, Government of Goa, to ensure that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from out of the terminal benefits of said Hanumanth Rao Kulkarni be paid directly to his wife Smt.Janakamma r/o No.150, 1st Main Road, V Phase, W C C road, Bangalore 560 010 or by sending the said amount to her SB account which she is required to furnish to them to enable transfer of aforesaid amount to revision petitioner through NEFT/RTGS or in the alternative by depositing Rs.5,00,000/- in this revision petition by the Government of Goa, to be released in favour of revision petitioner and thereafter to release the entire balance terminal benefits in favour of Hanumanth Rao Kulkarni with intimation of the same to this Court. It is needless to say that the entire exercise shall be completed by the Electricity Department of Government of Goa within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- 12 -
In view of the disposal of main revision petition, IA.3/2016, IA.I/2016, IA.1/2013, IA.2/2013 and IA.I/2017 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-