Sri Shekar Shetty vs Smt Kasturi Shetty
2021 Latest Caselaw 765 Kant

                            1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

                           AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7848 OF 2015 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.SHEKAR SHETTY
SON OF BABU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
DRIVER, (TOKEN NO.8090)
K.S.R.T.C., BEJAI, MANGALURU.
                                         ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI:P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE (VC))

AND:

SMT.KASTURI SHETTY
WIFE OF SHEKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT GURUVAPPA
COMPOUND, KUDROLI
MANGALURU-3.
                                         ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI:DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE))


     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.09.2015 PASSED IN M.C.
NO.121 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
                              2



FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1) (i-a)(i-b) OF THE
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the husband assailing the

direction issued by the Family Court, Dakshina Kannada,

Mangaluru, in M.C.No.121 of 2014 dated 04/09/2015 to

pay permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent

herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant

had filed the petition under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act" for the sake of brevity) seeking dissolution of his

marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. The

Family Court allowed the petition and passed a decree

dissolving the marriage between the parties which was

solemnized on 08/12/1989 at Samaja Bhavan,

Mannagudda, Mangaluru. However, while passing the said

judgment and decree, the Family Court also directed the

appellant to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards

permanent alimony within three months from the date of

the said judgment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Being

aggrieved by the direction issued to pay permanent

alimony to the respondent, this appeal has been preferred.

3. We have heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned counsel

for the appellant and Sri.Devi Prasad Shetty, learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on

record as well as the original record.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant is

working as driver in the KSRTC and the respondent is

eking out her livelihood by rolling beedi. The document

produced by the respondent before the Family Court

discloses that the appellant herein was drawing gross

salary of Rs.33,752/- and the take home salary was

Rs.27,863/-. The Family Court after taking into

consideration the materials on record observed that the

respondent is claiming maintenance from the appellant

since 1992 for maintaining herself. The Family Court

further observed that the appellant was drawing sufficient

salary and he was also likely to get retirement benefits of

more than Rs.25,00,000/-. Considering all these facts and

circumstances, permanent alimony of Rs.8,00,000/- was

awarded, which is being challenged in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended

that the appellant has since retired from his service, got

retirement benefits of only about Rs.13,00,000/- and not

Rs.25,00,000/- as estimated by the Family Court.

Therefore, compensation by way of permanent alimony at

Rs.8,00,000/- was without any basis and it is exorbitant.

6. However, on going through the materials on

record, we find that the Family Court has awarded

permanent alimony to the respondent not only on the

basis of its finding that the appellant was likely to get

retirement benefits of more than Rs.25,00,000/-, but it

also took into consideration the avocation of the

respondent as beedi roller and having a daughter to look

after. The Family Court also considered the fact that the

respondent was claiming maintenance since the year 1992

and also considered the avocation of the appellant as

driver in KSRTC and drawing gross salary of Rs.33,752/-.

The Family Court also considered that the respondent has

to maintain herself and also her daughter.

7. Since there is dispute regarding the quantum

of the retirement benefits that is received by the appellant

and the income of the respondent, both the parties were

directed to file their affidavits as enunciated by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha and another [2020 SCC

Online SC 903]. Accordingly, both parties have filed their

affidavits.

8. The appellant has stated that he retired from

his service in the year 2016 and received retirement

benefits including (PF and gratuity) of Rs.13,84,921/- and

the same has been credited to the bank account and the

copy of the relevant page of the bank pass book is

produced. Whereas, the respondent by filing affidavit has

denied the averments made in the affidavit filed by the

appellant and contended that the appellant is leading

comfortable life without paying any maintenance amount

and stated that she received the retirement benefits of

only Rs.3,09,012/- on 14/07/2015 from Anand Tobacco

Company (Prakash Beedi) and apart from that, she is

getting monthly pension of Rs.2,199/- only and is leading

her life with great difficulty.

9. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has

not produced pension settlement papers to prove that he

has received Rs.13,84,921/- only as retirement benefits.

No reasons are assigned as to why such material

documents are withheld. Under these circumstances, we

are of the opinion that the amount of permanent alimony

awarded by the Family Court cannot be termed as

exorbitant. Therefore, the contention raised by the

appellant in this regard cannot be accepted.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not

find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is hence,

dismissed.

At this stage, it is noted that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-

has been deposited by the appellant before this Court and

the same has been permitted to be withdrawn by the

respondent-wife.

The appellant to deposit the balance amount of

Rs.5,50,000/- within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The

appellant to also pay the litigation cost awarded by the

Family Court to the respondent.

However, we refrain from awarding any cost in this

appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE *bgn/-