Karnataka High Court
Mrs. H Ranjitha Rao vs Mr. Venkatakrishna on 28 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2022 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN
MRS. H RANJITHA RAO
W/O VENKATAKRISHNA
D/O H RAJARAM RAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT LAKSHMI
DOOR NO.5/189(1), 5TH BLOCK,
KRISHNAPURA KATIPALLA
MANGALURU - 575 030
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
MR. VENKATAKRISHNA
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT PADMA NIVAS, D.NO. 2-89-13
SHANKAR NAGAR,
KAVOOR, MANGALURU - 575 015
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.10.2021 TO THE EXTENT OF NOT GRANTING
INTERIM MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED FOR IN I.A.NO.V IN
M.C.NO.360/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS AND
ETC.
2
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 23.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the wife challenging the order dated 27.10.2021 passed on I.A.No.V in M.C.No.360/2019 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court') seeking for enhancement of maintenance. Vide the said order dated 27.10.2021, the Family Court partly allowed I.A.V filed by the Petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and awarded interim maintenance of `3,000/- per month for maintenance of the child Miss. Chinmayi.
2. The necessary facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 08.02.2015 at Mangalore as per their customs and they resided together in their matrimonial home at Bengaluru. A daughter - Miss.Chinmayi was born to the parties from the said wedlock.
3
3. The Respondent-husband instituted M.C. No.360/2019 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act seeking for a decree for dissolution of marriage. The wife entered appearance and filed her objection and also made a counter claim seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife filed I.A. V under Section 24 of the Act r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking for maintenance of `40,000/- p.m., for herself and their minor child. The husband filed his objections to the said application. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities. The Family Court, by its order dated 27.10.2021 directed the husband to pay maintenance of `3,000/- p.m., for the minor child. Being aggrieved the present Writ Petition his filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner herein contended that:
i) The Family Court has not properly noticed and appreciated the falsity of the statement made by the Respondent in the affidavit filed by him.
ii) That having regard to the facts and circumstances in the case, the Family Court 4 ought to have ordered a higher maintenance towards maintenance to the child.
Hence, he seeks for allowing of the petition and awarding of a higher amount towards maintenance.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent herein justifying the order passed by the Family Court contended that:
i) The husband is unemployed and that his mother and brother are providing for his sustenance whereas the wife is employed in the Karnataka Bank Ltd., and drawing a net salary of `59,377/- as on June 2021.
ii) The wife has sufficient means of income to maintain herself as well as the child.
Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the above petition.
6. The Family Court after noticing the contentions putforth by both the parties has recorded the following findings:
i) The wife is admittedly employed in Karnataka Bank as an Officer and her pay slip for the month 5 of June 2021 demonstrates that her net salary is `41,438/- and gross salary is `59,377/-.
ii) That the affidavit of assets and liabilities of the wife shows that she has sufficient means of income to maintain herself and she is not entitled for maintenance from the husband.
iii) Merely for the reason that the husband has quit his job, he cannot shirk his responsibility from paying maintenance to the child.
iv) The affidavit of the husband contradicts the stand taken in his objections.
v) That the husband is a well qualified and he is bound to contribute towards the maintenance of the child to the extent possible.
vi) In the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the wife she explained the expenses incurred towards maintenance of the child.
7. Admittedly, the wife is employee in the Karnataka Bank and is drawing salary as noticed by the Family Court. Further, admittedly, the husband was working at HSBC Bank but he asserts that he is currently unemployed.
6
8. It is relevant to note that admittedly, the husband is qualified and has completed his Post Graduation. The aspect that is clearly forthcoming from the affidavit filed by the husband is that he has suppressed the relevant facts and is not forthcoming with the necessary details and information. Perhaps the husband has taken the judicial proceedings lightly and is unaware of the consequences of filing a false/incorrect affidavit. Be that as it may, the husband has deliberately withheld information with regard to the residence that he is staying in and as to whether the same is owned by him or any of his family members or the same is a rental accommodation. Further, while the affidavit of the husband discloses that he is paying EMI of `6,334/- to the Bank loan and EMI of `6,681 towards personal loan and his personal expenses amounts to `20,348/-, he has stated his income to be `3,000/- and has further stated that he is depending on his mother and brother for his personal expenses and under the condition of returning the same back when he starts earning. The falsity of declaration 7 made by the husband is that he has been granted loan which has been availed by him and necessarily the same has been done after evaluation of the financial status of the husband. In that background his declaration that he has income of only `3,000/- per month is ex-facie untenable.
9. There is no finality to an order awarding maintenance. In this context, it is useful to refer to the case of C.Sathishkarnan @ Karnan v. K.Raja Nandhini1, where a Co-ordinate Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held as follows:
" 11. There is no res judicata for maintenance matters. As and when the parties grow up, the prices gone up and the needs of the children increases, any number of subsequent petitions with relevant averments can be filed. No defence based on Section 11 C.P.C., can be put up in a petition filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955."
10. The Family Court, after noticing that the wife is employed and suitably earning as noticed above, has not 1 2015 SCC Online Madras 13125 8 awarded any maintenance to be paid to her, which finding is just and proper.
11. However, the Family Court has awarded `3,000/- as maintenance in respect of the child. It is necessary to take into account the fact that as on the date of IA.No.5, the minor child of the parties was aged 2½ years and in view of the fact the child is currently aged more than 4 years and would require to be admitted to a School, the wife will be required to incur expenditure towards the education of the child. Hence, it is just and expedient that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the child be enhanced.
12. It is also necessary to note that the Family Court has ordered the maintenance to be paid from the date of the order. It is a settled proposition of law that the maintenance is required to be paid from the date of the application (see: Rajnesh v. Neha2). 2 AIR 2021 SC 569 9
13. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed;
ii. The maintenance awarded vide order dated 27.10.2021 passed on IA.No.5 in MC No.360/2019 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru is modified to the extent of directing the husband to pay maintenance for the minor child at `6,000/-
p.m., from the date of the application i.e., 19.3.2021;
iii. The husband is liable to pay the arrears of enhanced maintenance within 60 days from today.
No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE BS/ND