Karnataka High Court
Sri Nataraj vs Anupama on 11 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32666
WP No. 43692 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 43692 OF 2019 (GM-FC)
Between:
Sri Nataraj
S/o. Veeranagouda Patil,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ:Nil, R/o No.22, Uday Nagar,
Hubballi, Dist:Dharwad.
...Petitioner
(By Smt. Monica Patil, Advocate)
And:
Anupama
W/o. Nataraj Patil,
C/o. Chanabasanagouda A. Polis Patil,
Digitally Aged about 34 years,
signed by
SUMA Occ: Architecture and Business,
Location:
HIGH R/o Arite, No.15, 1st Cross,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 10th A Main Road,
Indiranagar 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560038.
...Respondent
(By Smt. Beena P.K., Advocate)
This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for records in respect
of M.C.No.2267/2018 on the file of the I Additional Family
Judge, Bengaluru and quash the impugned order dated
5.4.2019 made in M.C.No.2267/2018 passed by the I
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru i.e.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32666
WP No. 43692 of 2019
Annexure-E, by issue of writ of certiorari or any other or
directions and further reject I.A.No.3 filed in
M.C.No.2267/2018.
This WP, coming on for orders, this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru City in M.C.No.2267/2018 awarding interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month.
2. The petitioner filed M.C.No.2267/2018 for annulment of his marriage with the respondent. During pendency of the said petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. She claimed that she was employed and was staying with her aged parents, who did not possess any regular income and that her dependence on her parents was causing huge financial hardships to -3- NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 them. This application was opposed by the petitioner herein, who contended that the respondent was a qualified architect and was employed at a company, namely, "ARCHAID Architects" at Indiranagar, Bengaluru. He further contended that the father of the respondent was the person responsible for the conduct of business of Ashwashakthi Engineers' Pvt. Ltd., and Kalyan Star Finance Limited apart from owning several immovable properties both in Hubballi and in Surshettikoppa village and other immovable properties in Bengaluru. He contends that the respondent's father was constructing a commercial complex in Vidyanagar, Hubballi. He therefore contended that the respondent and her family are capable of maintaining the respondent and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance.
3. The trial court after considering the case of the petitioner and the respondent, passed the -4- NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 impugned order directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- from the date of petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is a qualified Architect and was employed prior to the marriage. She contends that though the respondent was given in marriage to the petitioner on 07.06.2015, the marriage was marred immediately thereafter, and therefore, the respondent ought to have made efforts to find an employment for herself and she cannot claim that she is unable to maintain herself. She referred to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and contended that if the respondent is capable of earning and maintaining herself, she is not entitled to make any claim against the husband/petitioner. She further contended that the respondent holds several shares in the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 companies established by her father and that she is earning sufficient dividend on those shares and she has deliberately not disclosed them to the court. Therefore she contends that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has deliberately not produced any income tax returns though he claimed that he was not employed and therefore had filed nil returns. She contends that the petitioner is a qualified software engineer and was earning sufficiently at the time of marriage. She contended that the claim of the petitioner that he is unemployed and has no source of income is utterly false. She contends that the interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- granted by the trial court is the bare minimum needed to meet the litigation expense to defend the petition for annulment -6- NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 of marriage filed by the petitioner and also to look after her well being. She further contended that the companies which were established by the father of the respondent had suffered losses and she is not earning any dividend on the shares held by her in the said companies. She referred to Annexure-B an agreement of sale purportedly entered into between the petitioner along with his brother Mr. Nagaraj Veeranagouda Patil in respect of an apartment at Pune and the RTC of one of the ancestral properties bearing Sy.No.18/3 of Savura village, Savanur Taluk measuring 4 acres 32 guntas and contended that the petitioner has the wherewithal to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000/-. She also contends that the petitioner is in possession of her streedhana property and therefore the petitioner is liable to pay interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a qualified software engineer and the respondent is a qualified architect. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent were employed prior to their marriage. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was marred due to various issues and the petitioner and the respondent have been residing separately since May, 2016. A petition for annulment of the marriage was filed by the petitioner in the year 2018 and an application for interim maintenance was filed by the respondent on 07.11.2018. In the application so filed, the respondent did not disclose about her qualification as well as the fact that she was employed prior to the marriage at ARCHAID Architects. The impugned order does not disclose -8- NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 whether the Trial Court directed the parties to file their respective affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. None of them filed their affidavits before this Court too. However, it is seen that this court had granted interim stay of the impugned order subject to the petitioner paying 50% of the interim maintenance ordered by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- which was later transferred to the account of the respondent. Thus in view of this development and having regard to the fact that both the parties are trying to hoodwink each other about their income and their ability to maintain themselves, it is imperative that this petition is considered based on the available material.
8. There is no material placed on record either before the trial court or before this court to establish that from May 2016, till date, the respondent had made any efforts to secure any -9- NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 employment. If the respondent is qualified and is capable of earning, she cannot claim that she is unable to maintain herself. It is equally sad that the petitioner is playing modernday Shravan Kumar by claiming that he has given up his employment to look after his parents.
9. In the affidavit filed by the respondent accompanying the application for interim maintenance, she stated that she was residing at ARITE, #15, 1 s t Cross, 10 t h A Main, Indiranagara 2 n d Stage, Bengaluru - 560 038, which is the residential address of her parents. Therefore from the year 2016, till the year 2018, the respondent has been residing with her parents. Except claiming that her dependence on her parents is causing financial burden to them, she has not stated that her parents are in penury. She has filed an annual statement of Kalyan Star Udyog Ltd., and claimed that it did not register any profit
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 for the year ending 31.03.2021 but had suffered loss. She however did disclose about "Ashwashakthi Engineers Pvt. Ltd.," and did not deny that her father was constructing a complex at Hubballi.
10. When this petition was listed before this court, the respondent was called upon to produce documents to indicate the efforts undertaken by her to secure employment from the year 2016 to 2018. In response, the respondent has placed on record a document to show that she had enrolled with Naukri.com on 16.04.2011 and a letter dated 05.06.2018 addressed by her to Chaitra Enterprises seeking for a suitable job and a letter dated 20.04.2022 addressed by her to ICICI Bank Limited. The respondent has not placed on record any corresponding advertisements issued by either ICICI Bank or by Chaitra Enterprises calling for applications from suitable candidates. Therefore,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 it is clear that the respondent has made no efforts to find any employment from the year 2016 to 2018. An able bodied person endowed with all the qualification to earn cannot armtwist her spouse to pay maintenance, more particularly when she has no responsibility of raising children from the marriage or that her income exceeds her liabilities. As a matter of fact, if she secures an employment, she could wean herself away from the ill effects of a broken marriage and concentrate on her well being and to move on in life.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent cannot claim that she is not capable of maintaining herself and therefore the impugned order passed by the trial court granting interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- is not fully justified. However, this court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 respondent could have undergone trauma and suffered due to her marriage being marred. It is quite possible that in such debilitating circumstances, it may be impossible for her to find an employment. Thus faced with a broken marriage and the task of facing a slew of cases, the Court has to come to the aid of the respondent without tilting the scales of Justice. Thus it is appropriate to modify the impugned order granting maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of petition till today and the respondent could be put on terms to make attempt and secure employment within a period of one year from today and for this period she shall be entitled to receive maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month.
12. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order granting interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent is
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 modified and the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of petition till today and @ Rs.10,000/- per month from today till the next one year, within which the respondent shall find an employment for herself. The petitioner is discharged from the obligation to paying any maintenance to the respondent after expiry of one year from today.
13. The interim maintenance @ of Rs.6,000/- per month (50% of the interim maintenance granted by the trial court) already paid by the petitioner to the respondent during pendency of this proceedings shall be adjusted towards maintenance claimed by the respondent from the date of petition till the date of impugned order.
14. The petitioner shall deposit the balance of any maintenance payable before the Trial Court within one month from today, failing which the Trial Court may pass appropriate orders, including
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32666 WP No. 43692 of 2019 dismissal of the petition filed for annulment of marriage.
Sd/-
JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18