Bangalore District Court
Namratha.N vs Giridhar.S on 28 January, 2025
KABC010159692024
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57)
:Present :
Sri. Jai Shankar, B.Sc., LL.M.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 28th Day of January 2025
Crl. Appeal No.955/2024 C/W Crl. Appeal
No.1045/2024 & Crl. Appeal No.1046/2024
Parties in Crl. Appeal No.955/2024
APPELLANT Sri.Giridhar S
S/o Late Shivalingaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.13, Near Post Office,
Vishveshwaraya layout,
6th Block, Ullal Upanagar,
Bengaluru -560 110
(By Sri.Manjunath H. Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENT Smt.Namratha N
W/o Sri.Giridhar Shivalingaiah,
D/o P.Nagesh,
Aged about 31 years,
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w
2 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and
Crl.A.No.1046/2024
R/at No.104, Sri.Vinayaka Sadana,
14th Cross, 7th Main,
Lakkasandra Extension,
Bengaluru -560 030
(By Sri.G.Shankar Advocate)
Parties in Crl. Appeal No.1045/2024 &
Crl. Appeal No.1046/2024
APPELLANT Smt.Namratha N
W/o Sri.Giridhar Shivalingaiah
D/o P.Nagesh
Aged about 31 years
R/at No.104, Sri.Vinayaka Sadana,
14th Cross, 7th Main,
Lakkasandra Extension
Bengaluru -560 030
(By Sri.G.Shankar, Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS 1 Sri.Giridhar S
S/o Late Shivalingaiah
Aged about 36 years
2 Sri.Deepak S
S/o Late Shivalingaiah
Aged about 32 years
3 Smt.H.P.Sathyavathi
W/o Late Shivalingaiah
Aged about 56 years
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w
3 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and
Crl.A.No.1046/2024
All are R/at No.13, Near Post Office,
Vishveshwaraya layout
6th Block, Ullal Ypnagar
Bengaluru -560 110
(By Sri.Manjunath H.Advocate)
: ORDER :
Since above three appeals are between the same parties and filed challenging the order passed by the learned MMTC-VI in Crl.Misc. No.41/2023 dated 06.05.2024, they are clubbed together. The appeal in Crl.A No.955/2024 is preferred by the appellant/husband under section 29 of the PWDV Act praying to set aside the order of interim maintenance granted to the respondent. The appeal in Crl.A No.1045/2024 is preferred by the appellant/wife under section 29 of the PWDV Act praying to enhance the interim maintenance to Rs.50,000/- per month. The appeal in Crl.A No.1046/2024 is also filed by appellant/wife under section 29 of the PWDV Act praying Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 4 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 to pass an order of residence by granting monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- per month.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant/wife in Crl.A Nos. 1045/2024 and Crl.A No.1046/2024 and respondent No.1/husband in the said cases who is the appellant in Crl.A.No.955/2024 will be referred to as petitioner and the respondent as they stand before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case filed before the trial court by the petitioner are as hereunder:-
That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 17.04.2017. The father of the petitioner spent around RS.25,00,000/- for the marriage. The respondent and his family members demanded 300 grams of gold and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- for clothing of respondent and to perform the marriage in a luxury marriage hall. The father of the petitioner Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 5 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 somehow managed to arrange for the same. After the marriage, the petitioner lived in her matrimonial home. The respondent and his family members started giving all sorts of pin pricks and harassment to bring more dowry. respondent was working in a Company at Austria at the time of marriage and hence he forced the petitioner to work in the same Company. They started to live together at Austria from 17.08.2017. The petitioner started to work in the same Company at Austria and she used to give her salary to the respondent. After the marriage, the respondent neglected the petitioner and was insulting her. He stopped cohabiting with the petitioner and never shown interest to have a child. The respondent had registered his profile on a Dating/Matrimonial website of Muslims in which it is stated that he was looking for polygamy relationship and interested to have additional affair with Muslim women. The lead to several questions and quarrels. During the visit of the petitioner to Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 6 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 Bengaluru during May 2022, her mother in law tortured her mentally and physically and she was also assaulted by her. When she returned back, the respondent also abused her foul language and threatened her that he will upload her private pictures in social media. The respondent has abused her and harassed her both in Bengaluru and Austria. The respondent is having sexual relationship with one Priya Mishra. The respondent is also having affairs with several women. On 30.05.2022, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.1 is having extra marital affair with a girl from New Delhi. Then, the petitioner was thrown out from the matrimonial home. Without any alternative she shifted to her parent's house. The petitioner had a joint account with the respondent at Hypo Tirol Bank, Insbruck, Austria. The respondent has denied her to access the said bank account and he is not allowing her to handle the said account. Though her father tried to convince the Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 7 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 respondent, he is not willing to lead marital life. Thereafter, both petitioner and respondents jointly filed a petition in M.C No.4247/2022. They also entered into a Memorandum of understanding. But, the respondent did not attend the court as per the agreement. The respondent had also lodged a false complaint. The respondent had issued three cheques for the amount payable to the petitioner and they have been dishonoured. A private complaint is filed and it is pending. Hence, the petition is filed under section 12 of PWDV Act seeking the reliefs of protection order, maintenance, compensation and medical expenses.
4. The respondent has filed objection to the petition in Cr.Mis.No.41/2023 and has denied all the averments made in the petition except admitting the relationship. He has further contended that after the engagement and few days before the marriage he started getting message on Facebook from unknown persons that the character of Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 8 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 the petitioner and she had affair with a person for five years. When he spoke to the petitioner, she told him that she does not like her boy friend who was living in Europe and they have not met since several years. After the marriage, the petitioner was constantly quarreling with his mother. She started to accuse him that he is having affair and she was trying to assassinate his character. During their stay at Austria, he used to cook non veg food and the petitioner had problems with that. Later, she started eating non veg and drinking Alcohol and creating problems to him. The petitioner was not letting him to sleep even on holidays. The respondent was harassed physically, mentally and financially constantly. The parents of the petitioner also supported her and asking her to quit his company. During May 2022, he came to know that there is adultery relationship between the petitioner and her boy friend. He visited India during July 2022 and at that time the petitioner and her Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 9 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 associates visited his house and created havoc and gave life threats to him and his family members. They snatched his Mobile and got transferred 40,000/- Euro to the Austrain Bank account of one Nandini without his consent. They confiscated his Passport and then took him to the office of the Advocate of the petitioner and he was forced to sign mutual consent Divorce petition and MOU containing illegal terms and conditions. They forcibly took another Rs.30,00,000/- as permanent alimony before mediation by online transfer. He has lodged a complaint regarding the same to the police. He has also filed a complaint in PCR No.2411/2023. The petitioner and her associates have also taken two signed blank cheques from him. He has lost his job and he has taken loan of 50,000 Euro which he has paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the petition to harass him. The father of the petitioner is owning properties Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 10 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 worth of around 11-12 crores. On all these grounds, he has prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Along with the petition, the petitioner had filed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 under section 23(2) and 19(1) of PWDV Act before the trial court seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month and for residence order praying to grant Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent. By order dated 06.05.2024, the trial court has allowed I.A.No.1 in part and directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of petition till the disposal of the petition. It is further ordered by the trial court that I.A.No.2 regarding residence order will be considered along with merits.
6. Being Aggrieved by the order regarding interim maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner, the Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 11 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 respondent has preferred Crl.A.No.955/2024 on following grounds: -
That the petitioner, her relatives and her advocates have illegally and forcefully snatched his mobile phone and with conspiracy transferred 40,000 Euro from his bank account to the account of Smt.Nandini and thereafter the said Nandini had transferred the amount to the bank account of the petitioner. They have also forceful took another Rs.30,00,000/- as permanent alimony by online account transfer and have snatched three cheques by forcefully getting his signature on MOU. He has lodged a police complaint on 12.10.2022 regarding the same. He could not lead the happy married life because there were serious misunderstanding and difference between him and the petitioner and there was lack of mutual confidence. He has filed the divorce petition in M.C.No.1188/2023 and it is pending. He has also filed the PCR No.2411/2023 against the petitioner Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 12 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 and her parents and her advocates. The petitioner has filed a false dowry harassment case against him in Cr.No.101/2023. The petitioner and her associates have decided to recover the illegal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from him by filing one or other cases. The petitioner is well educated having sufficient financial competency. She has received illegal money and falsely making claim of maintenance and monetary compensation. The petitioner is employed and her parents are having number of immovable properties in Bangalore city getting very good monthly rents. The petitioner's father is also doing the business earning lacks of rupees. A false cheque bounce case is also filed against him in C.C.No.3266/2023. Though, the petitioner has received 40,000 Euros and another Rs.30,00,000/-, she is falsely claiming alternative accommodation. Only to snatch money from him the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m. He Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 13 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 is jobless and he has to clear the loan of 50,000 Euro at Austrian Bank. The petitioner gets monthly income of Rs.31,000/- p.m from Rs.65,00,000/- received from him. His monthly expenses is around 72,752 Euros. Though, he had to pay 14,387 Euros to the petitioner, she has got transferred 40,000 Euros from him. The interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- granted to the petitioner is against the settled position of law. Since the petitioner has received Rs.65,00,000/- from him, she is not entitled for any interim maintenance. There are no prima facie materials to grant interim maintenance to the petitioner. The trial court has not considered the objection filed by the respondent and erroneously come to the finding that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. The petitioner is trying to extract more money by making false accusation and using fabricated evidences about extra marital relationship. The order of the trial court is erroneous and as such it has to be set aside. On all these Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 14 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 grounds, the respondent has prayed to set aside the order of trial court dated 06.05.2024.
7. The petitioner has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.1045/2024 seeking enhancement of interim compensation from 20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- on following grounds:
That the impugned order passed by the trial court is partly incorrect and it is passed without application of mind. The trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The trial court has not considered the affidavit filed by the respondent and the objection filed by her. The respondent is an Austrain citizen and he is working at Austria. The expenditure that he is spending was not at all considered by the trial court. His average monthly expenditure is about Rs.3,40,000/-. While granting maintenance, the standard of living of both parties has to be taken into consideration. Mere a blank statement that Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 15 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 now he is jobless is not sufficient to say that he has no income at all. The respondent has filed a false affidavit before the court. Since he had declared that his expenditure is Rs.3,40,000/- p.m, the same should have been considered for granting interim maintenance. She has come back to India and now she is jobless. The respondent is disputing of executing MOU by contending that it is obtained by force. He has filed a suit in O.S.No.26399/2023 for recovery of the alleged amount transferred as per the MOU. If he succeeds he would recover the amount and as such, the said amount cannot be considered for granting maintenance. The respondent has not whispered about the contribution of salary of the petitioner. The allegation that the father and brother of the petitioner are rich having sufficient properties, would not assist the respondent in any way. He is under an obligation to maintain the petitioner. The respondent No.1 and his family members are having several Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 16 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 immovable properties and getting rentals. All these aspects are not considered by the trial court while fixing the maintenance at Rs.20,000/- p.m. The interim maintenance awarded by the trial court is not proper and sufficient to the petitioner to live at the same standard of living of the respondent and his family members. Hence prayed to modify the order of the trial court and to enhance the interim maintenance to Rs.50,000/- p.m.
8. The petitioner has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.1046/2024 seeking residence order praying to direct the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- p.m. towards rent with the similar grounds urged in Crl.A.No.1045/2024. She has also urged the following additional grounds:
That merely because she is accommodated by her parents, she is disentitled to claim monthly rents. The father of the appellant had let out several tenements in Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 17 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 the building owned by him. Her father is deprived of monthly rent from his premises in which she has been accommodated. It is the duty of the respondent to pay the rental of the said premises. The trial court misconstrued the law on this point. The trial court ought to have granted an order of payment of amount towards rentals. On these grounds, she has prayed to award residence order by granting monthly rental of Rs.20,000/- p.m.
9. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire materials on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the trial Court has committed an error by granting interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the petitioner?
2. Whether the respondent has made sufficient grounds to set aside the order of interim maintenance passed by the trial court in Crl.Misc.No.41/2023 as sought?
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 18 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024
3. Whether the petitioner has made sufficient grounds to enhance the interim maintenance from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- p.m as sought?
4. Whether the petitioner has made sufficient grounds to award residence order and to grant monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- p.m. as sought?
5. What order?
10. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials on record, I answer above points as hereunder:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 to 4: Since these points are interconnected to each other, they are taken up together Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 19 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 for discussion in order to avoid repetition. In this case, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 17.04.2017. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the marriage, the respondent was working in Austria and after the marriage, the petitioner stayed in the matrimonial house at Bengaluru for few months and then she traveled to Austria. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner started to work in the same Company where the respondent was working. The petitioner has alleged in the petition in Cr.Mis.No.41/2023 that after the marriage she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the respondent and his family members. She has also alleged that the respondent is having extra marital affairs. The petitioner has further stated that now she is staying in her parents house. She has lodged a complaint to the police against the respondent and his family members alleging dowry harassment and a case has been Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 20 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 registered in Cr.No.101/2023. The respondent has denied the allegations made by the petitioner in his objection. He has contended that false allegations are made against him.
12. The petitioner has filed the petition in Crl.Misc.No.41/2023 seeking various reliefs under PWDV Act. She had filed I.A.No.1 and 2 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m and Rs.20,000/- p.m towards rent. The trial court has allowed I.A.No.1 in part and granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m and further passed an order that the prayer regarding the rent shall be considered along with main petition. Both the petitioner and respondent have preferred these appeals against the said order.
13. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the father of the petitioner had spent around Rs.25,00,000/- for the Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 21 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 marriage. After the marriage, the respondent and his family members started harassing the petitioner by demanding jewellaries and money. After the marriage, the petitioner was also working in the same Company where the respondent was working. She was handing over the entire salary to the respondent. The respondent started harassing the petitioner and he is also having affairs with several women. He left the petitioner at Bengaluru and went back to Austria. He is conducting the case by executing a GPA in favour of his brother. The respondent has stated that his monthly expenditure is Rs.3,40,000/- p.m. He is still working in Austria. The trial court did not consider the same and has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m which is not sufficient for the petitioner to lead her life. The petitioner is not working now. She is not asking for lavish life. She has the right to lead the life to the standard of the respondent. The petitioner was forced to leave the job and the country.
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 22 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 Though, it is alleged that money is paid to the petitioner under a MOU, the respondent has lodged complaint against Nandini and the amount has been freezed. The petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m. considering the income of the respondent. He further argued that the petitioner is also entitled for alternative accommodation and a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m towards the same. The trial court has refused to grant the same and has wrongly passed an order that the same will be considered along with merits. Hence, prayed to allow the appeals filed by the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he has rel.ied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.4109/2023 dated 19.11.2023 in which in the case of Dr. Rajiv Verghese V/s Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis it is held that "since the appellant has sacrificed her employment after the marriage, she is entitled for interim maintenance. Since Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 23 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 she was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home, she is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home during the pendency of the petition". He has also relied on another decision reported in 2021(1) Kar.L.R.192 in which in the case of R.D. Rajeev V/s Smt. Roopa in which it is observed that "A person being unable to maintain herself cannot be equated with her capacity to earn her livelihood. Though, a person may be educationally well-qualified for any job or may be eligible to perform a particular job, or may be capable to apply for any post or job, either in private or any other nature of establishments, but still she may be unable maintain herself. A mere possession of certain qualification by ipso facto cannot be considered that, a woman is able to maintain herself". He has also relied on another decision reported in 2023 SCC Online P&H 294 in which in the case of Sandeep V/s Suman it is observed that "a Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 24 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 husband has got a moral and legal liability to maintain his wife who is unable to herself"
14. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts. She has not mentioned the receipt of amount under the MOU in the petition filed before the trial court. Since dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent and a settlement was arrived for Rs.80,00,000/- and a MOU is also executed between them. A sum of Rs.65,00,000/- is already paid and it is admitted by the petitioner. The remaining balance of Rs.15,00,000/- was to be paid and cheques were issued regarding the same. N.I.Act cases have been filed by the petitioner with respect to those cheque case. Both the petitioner and respondent were employed earlier at Austria. Now, both of them are unemployed. Maintenance is being paid by the Austrian government to the respondent for a limited period. The respondent has no Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 25 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 earning now. The present standard of living has to be taken into consideration. The petitioner is getting interest on the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- paid by the respondent. Since huge amount is paid to the petitioner she is not entitled to any interim maintenance or the rent. The trial court has not considered the same while passing order on I.A.No.1. Hence, prayed to set aside the same. In support of his arguments, he has relied on the decision reported in 2002 0 Supreme (Mad) 455 in which in the case of Kumaresan V/s Aswathi it is observed that "Only condition required for grant of maintenance pendente lite is that the party should not have sufficient independent income for her support".
15. He has also relied on another decision rendered in Cas (c) 482/2008 in which in the case of Gurubindar Singh V/s Manjith Kaur the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that "concealing of material facts by the wife while seeking maintenance amounts to Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 26 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 contempt". He has also relied on another decision reported in ILR 1980 Kar 512 in which in the case of Haunsabni V/s Balakrishna Badiger it is held that "maintenance should be provided to a wife who is unable to maintain herself or has no sufficient means to maintain herself". He has also relied on another decision reported in AIR 2003 Madras 212 in which in the case of Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy V/s Devaki, the decision reported in 1976 Crl.L.J. 1664 (Manamohan Singh V/s Mahindra Kaur) and the decision reported in 2000 0 Supreme (MP) 264 (Mamta Jaiswal V/s Rajesh Jaiswal) in which similar principle is laid down. He has also relied on another decision reported in 2007 0 Supreme (Del) 774 in which in the case of Alok Kumar Jain V/s Purnima Jain in which it is observed that "unless a detailed affidavit disclosing investments made by the wife with respect to the amount of Rs.34,00,000/- withdrawn from joint account is filed by Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 27 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 her, the interim maintenance shall not be passed". He has also relied on another decision reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4981 in which in the case of Dr.E.Shanti V/s Dr.H.K.Vasudev in which it is held that "If the petitioner is capable of earning and having required qualification and if she was working prior to marriage the petitioner is not entitled for interim maintenance". He has also relied on another decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Cr.R.R 4004/2024 in which it is observed that "in view of the receipt of Rs.32,00,000/- by the petitioner from the opposite party in terms of the memorandum which did not fractify and since she has some income of her own to sustain herself, the grant of interim maintenance is not required". By relying on these decisions, the Counsel for the respondent has prayed to allow the appeal filed by the respondent and to dismiss the appeals filed by the petitioner.
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 28 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024
16. It is clear form the decisions relied on by both the sides that it is the moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. She is entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home during the pendency of the petition. In this case, the petitioner is now residing in her parent's house. The petitioner is residing in India and the respondent is residing in Austria. It is not in dispute that after the marriage both the petitioner and respondent were working in the same company. In the petition, the petitioner has alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the respondent and his family members. She has also lodged a police complaint and a case has been registered. The petitioner is not working now. These facts prima facie show that the petitioner has been subjected to domestic violence and now she has no income. As such, the petitioner is entitled for interim Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 29 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 maintenance as rightly held by the trial court. There are no grounds to set aside the order of interim maintenance granted to the petitioner.
17. As for as the quantum is concerned, the trial court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner is seeking for enhancement of the same to Rs.50,000/- per month. As observed above, it is not in dispute that earlier both the petitioner and the respondent were working in the same Company and both of them were earning. Now the petitioner has contended that the respondent has left her in India and gone back to Austria. Now she is staying in her parent's house and she has no earning. The petitioner has stated in her assets and liabilities statement that she has studied M.sc., in Bio Chemistry. She was working earlier in Austria. These facts show that she has the capacity to earn. The same has to be taken into consideration while awarding interim maintenance.
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 30 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024
18. Further, it is alleged by the petitioner that after dispute arose between her and the respondent a joint petition in M.C.No.4247/2022 was filed but later the respondent refused to obey the terms of the memorandum of understanding. The respondent has contended in his appeal that his signatures were forcefully obtained on the memorandum of understanding. He has also contended that the petitioner and her associates forcefully got transferred 40,000 Euros to the account of one Nanditha which was later transferred to the account of the petitioner. He has further contended that they forcefully obtained Rs.30,00,000/- from him and also three cheques. It is submitted during the arguments by the Counsel for the respondent that settlement was for Rs.80,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- is already paid to the petitioner. He has also produced the copy of deposition of petitioner in which she has stated about two memorandum of Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 31 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 agreements which are marked as Ex.D.1 and D.2 and she has also admitted the transfer of money by the respondent. She has stated that 20,000 Euro has been freezed and 20,000 Euro and Rs.30,00,000/- is in her account. These facts show that respondent has transferred 40,000 Euro and Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner. Whether there was settlement as per the memorandum of understanding or not is a matter of trial. At this stage, the material on record show that the said amounts are transferred by the respondent to the petitioner. The evidence is not yet completed before the trial court.
19. Both the petitioner and respondent are contending that they are jobless. The respondent is residing at Austria. He has stated in his assets and liabilities statement that his monthly expenditure is Rs.2,76,512/-. The materials on record also show that the respondent has got good earning capacity. The Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 32 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 petitioner will get interest out of the money transferred by the respondent. The petitioner has also the capacity to earn. If these facts are taken into consideration, it has to be held that the interim maintenance awarded by the trial court is just and proper. The trial court after considering the materials placed before it has rightly held that the petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. There are no grounds to enhance the same. Even regarding the claim of the petitioner for Rs.20,000/-, the trial court has rightly held that the same can be considered while disposing of the case on merits. Since an amount of 40,000 Euros and Rs.30,00,000/- is transferred to the petitioner by the respondent and interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- is granted, there are no grounds to award amount towards rent as an interim relief. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial court. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the negative.
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w 33 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024
20. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 & 2 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Crl.A.No.955/2024 preferred by the appellant/respondent under Section 29 of PWDV Act is hereby dismissed.
The Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and Crl.A.No.1046/2024 preferred by the appellant/petitioner under Section 29 of PWDV Act are hereby dismissed.
The order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Court of MMTC VI, in Crl.Misc.41/2023 is hereby confirmed.
Office to send a copy of this order to the trial court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th Day of January, 2025) (Jai Shankar) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w
34 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and
Crl.A.No.1046/2024
Crl.A.No.955/2024 C/w
35 Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and
Crl.A.No.1046/2024
Judgment pronounced in open
Court (Vide separate order)
ORDER
The Crl.A.No.955/2024
preferred by the
appellant/respondent under
Section 29 of PWDV Act is hereby
dismissed.
The Crl.A.No.1045/2024 and
Crl.A.No.1046/2024 preferred by
the appellant/petitioner under
Section 29 of PWDV Act are
hereby dismissed.
The order dated 06.05.2024
passed by the Court of MMTC VI,
in Crl.Misc.41/2023 is hereby
confirmed.
Office to send a copy of this
order to the trial court.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.