Karnataka High Court
Smt.Manjula W/O Dr. V.N.Murlidhar vs Dr.V.N.Murlidhar on 19 September, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
RPFC No.200097/2017
C/W
RPFC No.200074/2017
In RPFC No.200097/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt. Manjula
W/o Dr. V.N.Murlidhar
Aged about 39 years
Occ: Household
R/o Now residing in
H.No.11-1879/1A
Sharana Nilaya, Ram Nagar
Kalaburagi
... Petitioner
(By Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
Dr. V.N.Murlidhar
S/o V.B.Narayanappa
Aged about 45 years
Occ: Lecturer in Government
Degree College, Sira
R/o H.No.193, Hongirana
4th Cross, 2nd Block
2
Mahalaxmi Nagar, Batwadi
Dist. Tumkur
...Respondent
(By Sri R.S.Lagali, Advocate)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Court Act, praying to allow this petition and to modify the
impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the District
Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.63/2013 and consequently, to enhance the
maintenance amount from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per
month from the date of petition.
In RPFC No.200074/2017
BETWEEN:
Dr. V.N.Muralidhar
S/o V.B.Narayanappa
Age: 45 years, Occ: Lecturer
in Government Degree College
Sira, R/o H.No.193, Hongirana
4th Cross, 2nd Block
Mahalaxmi Nagar, Batwadi
Dist. Tumkur
... Petitioner
(By Sri R.S.Lagali, Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Manjula
W/o Dr. V.N.Muralidhar
Age: 38 years
Occ: Household work
3
R/o H.No.11-1879/1A
Sharana Nilaya, Ram Nagar
Kalaburagi
...Respondent
(By Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, Advocate)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Courts Act, praying to allow this petition and thereby set
aside the judgment and order dated 31.05.2017 passed by
the District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.63/2013.
These petitions are coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
These two petitions are directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.63/2013 which is a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/wife, Manjula.
2. Brief facts of the case are, That the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 26.11.2007 at Bhavikatti Kalyan 4 Mantap, Tumkur. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.2,50,000/- for purchase of gold, Rs.1,00,000/- purchase of cloths and Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of household articles were given and the marriage was performed with an expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The marital house was started at Tumkur. The petitioner was looked after affectionately for three months and during that time, she conceived and pregnancy got aborted at the instance of the respondent/husband and his family members. Due to miscarriage, the petitioner became weak and she was treated by Dr. Rajeshwari Paladi Maternity and Nursing Home on 11.01.2008. The petitioner/wife was under treatment in Gulbarga after abortion, wherein she regained her health and informed the respondent to take her back. The respondent/husband never came to see or attend the petitioner. The respondent and his family members refused to shelter her in the family but demanded Rs.3,50,000/- as additional dowry. After about four months, the petitioner along with 5 her father and relatives went to Tumkur to join the respondent. At that time, paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent and she was taken in the house. After some days, again the respondent and his family members have ill-treated the petitioner and she was asked to bring remaining dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. When it was not given, the petitioner/wife was thrown away from the house. The petitioner further claimed that during June, 2012 she came to know that the respondent/husband is having illicit affair with a lady. She claimed that she does not have means to maintain herself and the respondent is getting salary of Rs.43,762/- per month.
3. The respondent/husband entered appearance and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. On the other hand, he claimed that there was no justification or truth in the allegations made by the petitioner-wife.
4. The learned Family Judge disposed of the matter and during trial, he had the accommodation of oral evidence of PW.1-Manjula and PW.2-Anilkumar and Exs.P1 6 to P3 as the documentary evidence. The respondent did not choose to adduce oral evidence. However, salary certificate is marked as Ex.D1. Under the said circumstances, the learned Family Judge has granted maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month payable by the respondent/husband from the date of said order. It is against this order, the petitioner/wife has filed RPFC No.200097/2017 seeking enhancement of maintenance. At the same time, the respondent/husband has preferred RPFC No.200074/2017 seeking to set aside the judgment and order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.63/2013.
5. Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that the respondent/husband is working as Assistant Professor and got salary of more than Rs.62,000/- and he has no responsibility to maintain others. His father is pensioner and his brothers are settled independently and none of them are depending on the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife also 7 submits that the respondent has got income from agriculture.
6. Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that the relationship between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband is not disputed. The misunderstanding between the parties seems to be obvious and it is exchange of brain putting mistakes on each other by themselves. He would also submit that the petitioner/wife is a double graduate and capable of earning handsome salary. She has not joined job only to plant cause of action for claiming maintenance. On these grounds he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
7. In the context and circumstances, the data available to adjudicate the matter are, the marital relationship is not disputed. The respondent/husband is said to be Assistant Professor and his salary is said to be Rs.62,000/- per month. However, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that gross salary is 8 Rs.62,000/- and net salary is more than Rs.42,000/-. With all this, when the petition was disposed off, the maintenance amount was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month by the Family Court. It is necessary to take into consideration the circumstances prevailed at the time of grant of maintenance by the Family Court compared to present. The Court takes judicial notice of shooting up of prices, medicine, conveyance and other necessary aspects.
8. In the context and circumstances of the case, I find that if the maintenance amount is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month from Rs.12,000/- per month, it would meet the ends of justice.
9. Thus, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition in RPFC No.200097/2017 filed by the wife is allowed in part. The respondent/husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife from the date of filing of this petition. 9
Insofar as the petition in RPFC No.200074/2017 filed by the husband is concerned, I find no merit in the petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*