Karnataka High Court
Ravikumar @ Thangavelu vs Bhuvaneshwari @ Kavitha on 20 February, 2017
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
R.P.F.C. NO.20/2015
BETWEEN:
RAVIKUMAR @ THANGAVELU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O V.K. AYYASWAMY,
R/AT NO.1464/1, 3RD CROSS,
KOTHWAL RAMAIAH STREET,
MYSURU- 570 023.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
BHUVANESHWARI @ KAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. RAVIKUMAR,
R/AT NO.230/1, KSHATRIYA ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 023.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER S.19(4) OF FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2014 PASSED IN
C.MISC.NO.160/2011 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
FAMILY COURT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER S.125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 20.12.2014, passed in C.Misc.No.160/2011 by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Mysuru. By the said order, application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed in part and the petitioner - husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of `7,500/- p.m. from the date of the order to the respondent - wife.
2. Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the petition.
3. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as husband and wife respectively and they residing separately. Only contention urged by Sri P. Nataraju, learned advocate for the petitioner is that the maintenance amount directed to be paid at `7,500/- p.m. with effect from 20.12.2014, without credible evidence being brought on record of the case is on a higher side. Learned counsel submitted that the court 3 below has acted irrationally in quantifying the maintenance amount payable at `7,500/- p.m.
4. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, made submissions in support of the impugned order and sought dismissal of the petition.
5. Having regard to the submissions made, the point for consideration is, whether the order directing payment of maintenance amount at the rate of `7,500/- p.m. with effect from 20.12.2014 is justified?
6. Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.03.1999. M.C.No.63/2005 filed by the petitioner having been dismissed, MFA.No.9953/2008 was filed and the same also has been dismissed. The parties are living away from each other. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent is employed or having income sufficient for her maintenance. Both parties have adduced evidence which 4 is not supported by any document. Assessing the oral evidence of PW.1 and RW.1, learned Judge by taking into consideration that an interim maintenance amount of `5,000/- p.m. was ordered on 12.03.2012, has passed the order dated 20.12.2014, quantifying the maintenance amount payable at `7,500/- p.m. with effect from 20.12.2014.
7. As credible evidence with regard to the income of the petitioner from the business is not forthcoming, there is some merit in the contention of Sri P. Nataraju, learned advocate that the learned Judge of the Family Court has acted irrationally in quantifying the maintenance amount payable at `7,500/- p.m.
8. However, there being no dispute with regard to the payment of maintenance at the rate of `5,000/- p.m. pursuant to the order passed on 12.03.2012 and having regard to the escalation in the cost of living, the maintenance amount ought to have been directed to be paid at the rate of `6,000/- p.m. instead of `7,500/- p.m. 5 To the said extent, there is need for interference with the impugned order.
In the result, petition is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified. The maintenance amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent stands determined at `6,000/- p.m. with effect from 20.12.2014. The accumulated arrears, if any, shall be paid in three months period.
Parties to bear their respective costs. I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca