Karnataka High Court
Sri. Niranjan V vs Kum.N.Prathiksha on 4 July, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
RPFC No. 143 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
RPFC NO. 143 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI NIRANJAN V.,
S/O LATE D.T. VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11 3RD CROSS,
RMV 2ND STAGE, DEVAPPA GARDEN,
NAGASHETTIHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 094.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
KUM. N.PRATHIKSHA,
D/O NIRANJAN,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1 9TH CROSS,
1ST BLOCK NAGARBHAVI,
SUMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 078.
REP. BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN
Digitally signed by (GRANDFATHER) SRI VEERASIDDAIAH,
GEETHAKUMARI S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, 9TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
PARLATTAYA S NAGARBHAVI, SUMMANAHALLI,
Location: High BANGALORE-560 078.
Court of Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
13.03.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.120/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
C/C I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.PC. FOR
MAINTENANCE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
RPFC No. 143 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Challenging judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 passed I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, Crl.Misc.no.120/2016, this petition is filed.
2. Sri Siddharth Muchandi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is father of respondent. It was submitted, respondent had filed application claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It was submitted from marriage of petitioner with Smt.Veena, respondent was born. However, thereafter, petitioner had filed M.C.no.175/2007 for divorce. During pendency, Smt.Veena died due to illness on 11.05.2007, rendering it infructuous. Thereafter, petitioner had filed G & WC no.115/2007 for custody of respondent. Same was dismissed. In appeal before this Court, petitioner consented for custody of respondent with his mother-in-law. Thereafter, Crl.Misc.no.120/2016 was filed.
3. It was submitted, though, petitioner had entered appearance, and contested same by stating that he had re- married and begot two children, who were also required to be maintained with meager income, without justification Family -3- NC: 2024:KHC:25263 RPFC No. 143 of 2020 Court, ordered him to pay exorbitant amount towards maintenance.
4. It was submitted, petitioner had never failed or neglected to maintain respondent and filing of application under G & WC Act, would stand testimony of same. He had also stated that he would meet educational expenses of respondent, against receipts/bills. Further, respondent had already filed suit for partition of joint family properties and same was pending. It was submitted, only documents produced by respondent before Family Court were birth certificate, order in G & WC case, order of this Court in appeal, study certificate and achievement records as Exs.P.1 to P5. None of said documents were relevant for determination of quantum of maintenance. Hence, order of Family Court suffered from material irregularity if not, illegality in directing payment of monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/-. Hence, sought interference.
5. On other hand, Sri Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel for respondent sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, respondent is minor daughter of petitioner. Hence, there was no dispute about dependency.
6. In petition, it was asserted that petitioner was working as a software engineer and earning more than -4- NC: 2024:KHC:25263 RPFC No. 143 of 2020 Rs.1,50,000/-per month. Apart from same, he held immovable properties earning rental income of Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. He was also stated to be living in own house with three floors. Same would indicate that petitioner was having rich life style, which would justify claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/-.
7. It was submitted, during cross-examination, petitioner admitted that he was earning Rs.53,000/- per month as salary. Insofar as immovable properties, he stated that property in Peenya was standing in name of his mother. He also stated that house was also standing in name of his mother. To suggestions about income earned from said properties, petitioner had given evasive answers. Taking note of same, Family Court had held his average monthly income to be around Rs.1,00,000/- by drawing adverse inference for giving evasive answers. Even if, determination of monthly income by Family Court is to be considered as family income for considering status, order for payment of monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/- would not call for interference. On above grounds sought for dismissal of petition.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:25263 RPFC No. 143 of 2020
9. From above, point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether impugned order calls for interference?"
10. This revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyla Mutyalamma Alia Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and Anr. reported in (2011)12 SCC 189, has held there can be no re-evaluation of evidence and revisional Court can interfere only in case impugned order suffers from material irregularity or illegality or from error of jurisdiction. Hence, scope for interference cannot be equated to as in appeal.
11. Admittedly, there is no dispute about dependency and entitlement for maintenance. Challenge is only on quantum. Family Court has recorded that petitioner admitted his monthly salary to be Rs.53,000/-. That apart, there is admission about owning of property in Peenya, Bengaluru, (which is an industrial area) and a house with three floors. Though, he has denied having knowledge about deriving income from said properties by stating that they belonged to his mother, learned Family Court Judge, referred to his admission that petitioner's father died and his only sister was -6- NC: 2024:KHC:25263 RPFC No. 143 of 2020 already married. He further admitted that his mother was unable to move. Since, there was no acceptable explanation for lack of information, adverse inference was drawn. As it would be petitioner rather than respondent, who would have information about income from properties, drawing of adverse inference would be justified.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, has held determination of quantum of maintenance would involve some reasonable guess work. Based on admitted monthly income and holding of immovable properties, Family Court estimated total monthly income at Rs.1,50,000/-. Such being case, direction to pay monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/-, i.e. only 10% of monthly income would be fully justified and cannot be stated to be suffering from material irregularity or illegality or to be suffering from error of jurisdiction. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32