Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumitra vs Sri. Basavasraj on 5 October, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
RPFC NO.200115/2017
C/W
RPFC NO.200112/2017
RPFC NO.200115/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt. Sumitra W/o Basavaraj Yankanchi
Age:54 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Bidapur Colony, Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri I.R. Biradar, Advocate)
AND:
Sri Basavaraj
S/o Late Hanamanthraya,
Age:58 years, Occ: Head Master
In Government Kannada Primary
School, R/o Madbool,
Tq. Chittapur, Dist. Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Respondent
(By Sri G.B. Yadav Advocate, for
Sri Kumar B. Rathod, Advocate)
2
This RPFC is filed under Section 19 (4) of the
Family Courts Act praying to allow this revision petition
by suitably enhancing the maintenance awarded by the
District Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc.
No.182/2015.
RPFC NO.200112/2017
BETWEEN:
Basavaraj S/o Late Hanamanthraya
Yankanchi, age:60 years,
Occ: Head Master in Government
Kannada Primary School,
R/o Madbool, Tq. Chittapur,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri G.B.Yadav, Advocate)
AND:
Sumitra W/o Basavaraj Yankanchi
Age:56 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Bidapur colony, Kalaburagi,
Dist. Kalaburagi-585101.
... Respondent
(By Sri I.R.Biradar, Advocate)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19 (4) of the
Family Courts Act praying to allow the said revision
petition by setting aside judgment and order dated
24.08.2017 passed by the Family Court, Kalaburagi in
Crl.Misc. No.182/2015 and consequently dismiss the
petition filed by the respondent herein and etc.
3
These petitions coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Revision Petition No.200115/2017 is filed by one Smt. Sumitra against her husband Basavaraj. Similarly, RPFC No.200112/2017 is filed by one Basavaraj, said to be the husband of Sumitra.
The said Sumitra, the revision petitioner in RPFC No.200115/2017 preferred the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from her husband- Basavaraj claiming that she does not have means to maintain herself and that her husband has sufficient means, but intentionally has neglected to maintain her, who has no means to maintain herself. In this connection, the learned District Judge of the Family Court in Crl. Misc. No.182/2015 allowed the petition and granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of petition.
4
2. In order to avoid overlapping and confusions, the parties are referred with reference to either their status between them or the rank before the trial Court.
3. The petitioner-wife Sumitra has filed the Revision Petition No.200115/2017 claiming that the maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month granted by the trial Court as against her claim of Rs.20,000/- per month is extremely smaller amount compared to her needs and maintenance. She claims that the amount has to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-per month.
4. Respondent-Husband Basavaraj has filed the Revision Petition in RPFC No.200112/2017 and claims that respondent-husband has filed petition seeking for setting aside the order passed in Crl. Misc. No.182/2015 and wife-Sumitra has admitted to be residing with her children at Bangalore and further she has given the address wherein, she is not residing. 5
5. The learned trial Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of petitioner as PWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence as Exs.P.1 to P.12 from the petitioner side and DW.1 from the side of respondent and documentary evidence as Exs.D.1 and D.2.
6. In the overall circumstances, the marital relationship is not disputed. The parties are spouses. Their marriage was performed in the year 1984. The trouble had started after 20 years of their marriage. Petitioner-wife also states that sufficient dowry was received by the respondent.
7. She alleges harassment, neglect on her and husband alleges non co-operation, falsehood and suppressing the income source from the side of the wife.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner-wife would submit that respondent-husband is working as a Headmaster by drawing salary of Rs.45,000 per month. 6
9. Learned counsel for respondent-husband would submit that respondent is already retired from the service from the post of Headmaster and he is getting pension of Rs.18,000/- per month. He has age related sickness, he is relying on only pension.
10. In the overall circumstances, it is necessary to find that mere working or earning capacity to a husband would be sufficient to hold it as means out of which he is suppose to maintain his wife so long she is unable to maintain herself.
11. Learned counsel for respondent-husband would submit that petitioner-wife deliberately suppressed the material fact of her residence and tried to mislead the respondent-husband. In this connection, it is necessary to place on record that the falsehood regarding residence or suppressing of true facts if any may not work against the grant of maintenance. 7
12. In the overall context and circumstances of the case, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband also has to be taken into consideration that he is retired Headmaster, pension cannot be noticed that though he is retired finally, his wife is legally entitled to claim maintenance.
13. The necessity of maintenance is not conferred to a particular stage of the marital life.
14. In the overall context and circumstances, considering the price index and requirement to lead a normal life with dignity, it requires not less then Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, I hold that maintenance awarded by the Family Court is too low for sustaining and it requires to be increased to Rs.10,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances, further, by virtue of the enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, RPFC 8 No.200115/2017 is partly allowed and RPFC No.200112/2017 seeking for setting aside the order of the Family Court, Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc.No.182/2015 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
15. The respondent-husband is hereby directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition and deposit maintenance arrears within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has filed an application for direction to the respondent- husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as she underwent surgery.
17. It is made clear that the Court has ordered payment of arrears of maintenance at the enhanced rate from the date of petition. Thus, separate payment of medical expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- in the context and 9 circumstances may not arise. Hence, application is dismissed accordingly.
18. Learned counsel for respondent-husband would submit that an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month enhanced maintenance from Rs.6,000/- per month is high and exorbitant and the respondent-husband has got his own difficulties regarding health maintenance. Further, children are living with the petitioner and he has no persons to look after in his post retirement life. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband was working as Headmaster in a Government school and retired by attaining superannuation recently. Nothing is whispered regarding retirement benefits received by the respondent-husband. If the children are staying with the petitioner-wife that cannot be a factor for absolving the respondent-husband from paying maintenance.
10
19. Considering the cost of living and shooting up of the price of necessities, I do not find that an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month is exorbitant at any stretch of imagination.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband would submit that payment of maintenance by the respondent-husband would arise only if execution petition is preferred by the petitioner-wife within a stipulated period. It is made clear that the respondent- husband cannot set up rider of demanding execution petition, he can as well deposit the amount before the trial Court as a duty bound respondent-husband.
Sd/-
JUDGE NSP/RSP