Karnataka High Court

Smt Poornima C vs Sri S R Prakash on 15 January, 2021

Author: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                              BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

                    R.P.F.C. No.47 OF 2017
BETWEEN:

1.     Smt. Poornima C
       W/o. S.R. Prakash
       Aged about 35 years.

2.     Master S.P. Prajwal
       S/o. S.R. Prakash
       Aged about 16 years.

3.     Kumari Tejaswini
       D/o. S.R. Prakash
       Aged about 10 years.

Since petitioner No.2 and 3 are minor
Represented by his natural guardian and
Mother Smt. Poornima

All are resident of Maruthinagar
1st Link Road, Tumkur Town,
Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur District- 577 101.
                                             ..Petitioners
(By Sri.M.B. Ryakha, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. S.R. Prakash S/o. Rudraiah
@ Akki Rudraiah,
Aged about 43 years
                                                RPFC No.47/2017
                                  2


Resident of Swandenahalli,
Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District-577 101.
                                                    .. Respondent
(By Smt. Manjula D., Advocate)

                                    ****
      This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act,
praying to call for records in C.Misc.No.99/2014 on the file of the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru and to allow the
Revision Petition filed by the petitioners and thereby set aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 16-01-2017 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumkuru in C.Misc.No.99/2014 and
enhance the maintenance, etc.

      This RPFC coming on for Final Hearing, through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made
the following:

                             ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the wife and children of

the respondent, seeking for enhancement of maintenance. The first

petitioner is the wife and petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively are the

son and daughter of the present respondent.

2. The present petitioners had filed a petition under Section

125 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as the "Cr.P.C") in Criminal Misc.No.99/2014 in

the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Family Court") against RPFC No.47/2017

the present respondent seeking maintenance at the rate of

`25,000/- each per month from him.

3. The matter was contested by respondent herein.

4. After contest, the Family Court, by its judgment dated

16-01-2017 dismissed the petition filed by petitioners No.1 and 2

and allowed the petition of the petitioner No.3 and awarded

maintenance at the rate of `3,000/- per month from the date of

petition till the date of her marriage. Aggrieved by the said

judgment, the petitioners No.1 and 2 have sought for setting aside

the order of dismissal of their petition and allowing their petition

filed in the Family Court, whereas petitioner No.3 has sought for

enhancement of the maintenance ordered by the Family Court.

5. The respondent herein is being represented by his learned

counsel.

6. The Family Court's records were called for and the same

are placed before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the previous date of

hearing, i.e. on 13-01-2021 has confined the present petition only

to petitioner No.3 against the respondent and he submitted that he RPFC No.47/2017

would not press the petition of petitioners No.1 and 2. In the light

of the said submission, the scope of present petition was confined

only to consider the prayer of petitioner No.3 for enhancement of

maintenance. Accordingly, the arguments were heard from both

side, confining the scope of the present petition as the one for

enhancement of maintenance filed by the present petitioner No.3

only.

8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials

placed before this Court including the Family Court's records.

9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only

point that arise for my consideration in this petition is:

Whether the judgment under revision is perverse, illegal and erroneous warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his argument

submitted that the respondent is a practicing Advocate at Tumakuru

having put up not less than a practice of two decades and has got

lucrative income from his profession. He further submits that he RPFC No.47/2017

has also got landed properties of not less than about six acres from

which land, he earns sizeable income. According to the learned

counsel, the annual income of the respondent would be any amount

not less than `16.00 lakhs. He also submits that the petitioner

No.3 is now studying in VIII standard and pursuing her education in

a private Institution, where the tuition fee is also high and the

maintenance amount awarded in favour of petitioner No.3 in no

way matches to her requirement.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent who is appearing

through video conference submits that respondent is ready to take

care of petitioner No.3 i.e. his daughter, as such, there is no

necessity for enhancement of the maintenance ordered by the

Family Court.

12. In the Family Court, the petitioner No.1 got herself

examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6.

The respondent got himself examined as RW-1 and also got marked

documents from Exhibits R-1 to R-13. The respondent even

attempted to show that the house that was constructed was sold by

his wife as the sole owner of the house and has collected a sum of RPFC No.47/2017

`45.00 lakhs towards its sale consideration. In view of considering

all these aspects, the Family Court has held that the petitioner No.1

- wife is not entitled for any maintenance, but the said act of the

alleged sale of the house by petitioner No.1 would not be an excuse

for the respondent to pay maintenance to her daughter who is the

present petitioner No.3. It is considering the said aspect, the

learned learned Family Court has ordered maintenance payable by

the respondent to petitioner No.3, which is at the rate of `3,000/-

per month from the date of petition till the date of her marriage.

Therefore, the only point that remains now is to see whether

the said quantum of `3,000/- per month awarded as maintenance

payable to the present petitioner No.3 by the respondent is a

reasonable amount in the circumstances of the case.

13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.3 is now

studying in VIII standard in a private School and the contention of

the petitioners is that the monthly school tuition fee itself is

`5,000/- excluding the amount towards the school uniform, study

material and various other incidental expenses, etc. Though

learned counsel for the respondent contends that the said tuition RPFC No.47/2017

fee is being borne by the respondent, but nothing is placed before

this Court to accept the said contention of the respondent.

Admittedly, petitioner No.3 is staying away from the respondent

and she has continued to stay with her mother. Therefore, if at all

the respondent is really and actually paying her tuition fee, then, he

would have necessarily come up with documents including the

tuition fee receipts, to show that he has been paying the tuition fee

amount. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that, petitioner No.3 incurs more expenses than the

maintenance awarded in her favour by the Family Court appears to

be genuine and requires to be favourably considered.

14. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is a practicing

Advocate who is said to have put up a practice of not less than

twenty years. It is also not in dispute that the family of the

respondent owns agricultural lands which is evident from the five

RTCs which are at Ex.P-3. Though the said RTCs go to show that

no crop has been grown in one particular year, but the fact remains

that the respondent has got agricultural landed property also.

Exs.P-4 to P-6 further go to show that the respondent owns a car RPFC No.47/2017

and two motor cycles in his name. That means, he has got a good

practice and good source of income so that he can maintain a car

and two motor cycles and that he has also got income from

agricultural sources.

15. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.3 is pursuing her

studies in a private educational institution and studying in VIII

standard. Considering the quantum of tuition fee which is said to

have required to be paid and other incidental expenses she is

required to meet, I am of the view that the amount of `3,000/- per

month as maintenance ordered by the Family Court is far less than

the reasonable amount. As such, in my considered opinion, there is

necessity to enhance the said maintenance amount.

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, as analysed above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

stand dismissed as not pressed;

[ii] The petition of the petitioner No.3 - Kumari

Tejaswini, D/o. S.R. Prakash, Aged about 10 years, RPFC No.47/2017

since minor, represented by her natural guardian and

mother Smt. Poornima, resident of Maurthinagar, 1st

Link Road, Tumkur Town, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur District

- 577 101, is allowed in part;

[iii] The order dated 16-01-2017 passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru in Criminal

Misc.No.99/2014, awarding a maintenance of `3,000/-

per month to petitioner No.3, is modified and the said

amount is enhanced at a sum of `9,000/- (Rupees Nine

Thousand Only) per month.