Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath Goudar S/O. vs Smt. Rashmi K C W/O. Manjunath Goudar on 18 February, 2016
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.108574/2015 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
Manjunath Goudar,
S/o. Goudar Bommanagouda
Age about 32 years, Occ: Technical Architect,
INFOSYS Limited in E-City, Bengaluru,
Permanent residence Manjunath Krupa,
Near Kolshanthesheara High School,
Basaveshwar Nagar, Kottur Town,
Kudligi, Dist: Ballari.
... PETITIONER
(By Shri.Suresh P. Hudedagaddi & Shri A.C. Purad, Advocates)
AND:
Smt. Rashmi K.C.
W/o. Manjunath Goudar,
Age about 26 years,
R/o.1693/124, 11th Cross,
Siddaveerappa Badavane, Davangere(PO)
Tq & Dist: Davanagere.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. Neelendra D. Gunde, Advocate)
:2:
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order on
I.A.No.1 dated 20.07.2015, passed by the senior Civil Judge,
Kudligi, in MAT No.26/2014, vide Anenxure-E and etc.,
This writ petition coming on for 'being spoken to' this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner-husband filed the above writ petition against the order dated 20.07.2015 passed on I.A.1 in M.A.T. No.26/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kudligi, granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent - wife towards maintenance and litigation expenses for a period of six months.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
3. Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has committed an error in granting both maintenance and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- per month and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. :3: Accordingly, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
4. Per contra, Sri. N. D. Gunde, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife sought to justify the impugned order.
5. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemanized on 21.10.2013 at Bapuji Samudaya Bhavan, Davangere, as per the customs and traditions prevailing in their community. It is also not in dispute that the husband filed M.C.No.26/2014, under the provisions of Section 13(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), against the respondent-wife for divorce. The wife filed statement of objections denying all the averments made in the petition.
6. During the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings, the respondent-wife filed I.A.1/2015 under Section 24 of the Act R/w. Section 151 of CPC, claiming for maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month and litigation expenses, contending that :4: the petitioner filed the matrimonial case for divorce only to harass the respondent; the petitioner is the permanent resident of Kotur town and she has to come from Davangere to to Kudligi to attend the proceedings of the Court; she has to travel about 200 kms to attend the Court on every date of hearing; there are no sufficient busses from davangere for to and pro journey and she has to engage a private vehicle every time, which costs about Rs.5,000/- on each date of hearing; She further contended that there is an apprehension in the mind of her parents to send her alone to attend the Court and they are not in a position to maintain themselves and to pay her expenses and there is no sufficient income to maintain herself; and therefore, she required minimum Rs.25,000/- per month towards health, food, clothing and other expenses and also to meet out expenses of the pending case; She further contended that the petitioner was working as a Technical Architect in Infosys Ltd, with employee I.D.No.102581, Electronic City, at Bangalore and drawing salary :5: of about Rs.90,000/- per month. Therefore, she filed an application seeking maintenance and litigation expenses.
7. The said application was resisted by the petitioner- husband by filing the objections. But in the said objection, he has not disputed the factum of marriage between the parties and not denied the relationship between the parties as husband and wife. He has not denied that he is working as an Technical Architect in Infosys Ltd., and drawing about Rs.90,000/- per month. He has also not disputed the distance between Davanagere to Kudligi is about 220 kms and the fact that the respondent-wife has no means to attend the Court on every date of hearing. He has also not disputed the assertions made in the application for interim maintenance, except denial of monthly maintenance.
8. Though Sri. Kalasurmath, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court has granted Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance and the litigation expenses monthly, the said contention cannot be accepted. The interim order granted by the trial Court clearly indicates that maintenance of Rs.30,000/- is :6: granted per month and litigation expenses is granted only for one time and not for every month.
9. The trial Court considering the pleadings of both the parties recorded a finding that the petitioner is having 41.38 acres of land and his father was having a house at Door No.1043/23, which is worth Rs.40 lakhs and house situated at Hagari Sirahanalli, which is worth Rs.15 lakhs and Luxury car (Honda) which is worth Rs.9,50,000/- and petitioner is living in the house situated at Bangalore, which is worth Rs.50 lakhs, in total the petitioner is having a property worth Rs.2,34,50,000/-. The respondent has also produced a gift deed executed by her grand mother in site No.19, Door No.828 of Davangere and RTC shows that the it is not in the name of individual capacity in the name of the respondent. The gift deed is only an open site and the respondent do not get the income from the said site. The trail Court also recorded a finding that when the husband failed to produce any material document to prove that his wife has got sufficient means to maintain herself, he is duty bound to maintain :7: his wife under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, during the pendency of the proceedings between the parties. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under:
"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings: Where in any proceeding under this Act if appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable."
10. Admittedly, in the present case, the husband has not produced any material document to prove that the wife has got any sufficient means to maintain herself during the pendency of the proceedings and the assertion made by the wife that the husband is having agricultural lands, house properties and a car as well is having property worth Rs.2,30,50,000/- is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the husband is working as a Technical :8: Architect in the Infosys Ltd., Bangalore and drawing a salary of Rs.90,000/- per month.
11. Taking into consideration the materials facts on record, the trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month and litigation expenses, which is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order by exercising powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month is apart form the litigation expenses. However, liberty is given to both the parties to file necessary application, if they so choose in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab