K.M. Krishna vs Smt. G. Gayathri Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 7361 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24 T H DAY OF MAY, 2022

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                RPFC NO.33 OF 2019
                       C/W
                RPFC NO.127 OF 2019

IN R PFC NO.33/2019

BETWEEN:

K.M. Krishna
Aged about 55 years
S/o. K.C. Melegowda
Presently resid ing at
Keremeg ala Doddi Villag e
Besagarahalli Post
Koppa Hob li
Maddur Taluk
Mandya District-571419
                                            ...Petitioner
(By Sri H.C. Shivaramu, Advocate)

AND:

Smt. G. Gayathri Devi
Aged about 50 years
W/o. K.M. Krishna
D/o. P.M. Govind aiah
Amrutha Nivas
No.1091/20, 19 t h Main
II Stag e, Gokulam
Mysore-571401
                                           ...Respondent
(Smt. G. Gayathri Devi, Party-in-Person)
                          :: 2 ::


     This RPFC is filed und er Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984, ag ainst the order dated
30.11.2018 p assed in C.Mis.No.516/2015 on the file of
the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mysuru, allowing the petition filed und er Section 125
of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.

IN R PFC NO.127/2019

BETWEEN:

Smt. Gayathri Devi
W/o. K.M. Krishna
Aged about 47 years
Presently R/at
C/o. R.S. Satish Kumar
Amruth Nivas
Door No.1091/20
9 t h Main, III Stag e
Gokulam, Mysore-570002
                                             ...Petitioner
(Smt. G. Gayathri Devi, Party-in-Person)

AND:

Sri K.M. Krishna
S/o. Late K.C. Melegowda
Aged about 54 years
Residing at No.2547
1 s t Cross, Gand hi Nagar
Mandya -571401
                                           ...Respondent
(By Sri H.C. Shivaramu, Advocate)

     This RPFC is filed und er Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act 1984, ag ainst the Judgment and
decree d ated 30.11.2018 passed in C.Mis.No.516/2015
on the file of the II Additional Princip al Judge, Family
Court, Mysuru, allowing the petition filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for maintenance.

     These RPFCs p ertaining to Beng aluru Bench
having been heard & reserved on 12.04.2022, coming
                               :: 3 ::


on for pronouncement this day, the Court sitting at
Kalaburagi   Bench    through  vid eo conferencing
pronounced the following:

                          ORDER

These two revision petitions filed under

Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are

disposed of by a common order, as they are

directed against the order dated 30.11.2018

passed in C.Misc.No.516/2015 on the file of the

II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,

Mysuru.

2. RPFC No.33/2019 is filed by the

husband and RPFC No.127/2019 is filed by the

wife. For the purpose of narration of facts, the

parties are referred with respect to position of

each of them in the Family Court i.e., wife is

referred to as the petitioner and the husband as

the respondent.

3. The petitioner is the second wife of the

respondent; their marriage was solemnized on :: 4 ::

01.02.2004 at Mysuru. The respondent's first

wife Pushpalatha died in the year 2002. The

respondent has two daughters born through first

wife.

4. The petitioner and the respondent were

living together in a house at Mandya till the year

2009. Then there arose differences between

them. The petitioner came to know that the

respondent had undergone vasectomy to avoid

her to conceive. Because of some medical

complications, he got the vasectomy undone and

resultantly, she conceived. But she alleged that

the respondent forced her for termination of

pregnancy, drove her out of his house and

neglected to provide maintenance to her. The

respondent filed M.C.No.34/2009 in the Court of

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandya for

dissolution of their marriage. The petitioner

initiated action for maintenance under the :: 5 ::

provisions of Prevention of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, in the Court of

Magistrate, Srirangapatna, where she was

awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month.

Then on the allegation that she was neglected by

the respondent without providing maintenance,

she initiated action under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

claiming maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month.

5. The respondent refuted all the

allegations against him. He contended that he

married the petitioner after the death of his first

wife with a fond hope that she would look after

his two daughters very well. But, she turned out

to be troublesome and neglected the family

because of her interest to take part in political

activities. She ill-treated him and his two

daughters and also threatened to kill the

daughters. Without his knowledge, she withdrew

Rs.4 to 5 lakhs which had been deposited by him :: 6 ::

in her bank account. Her behaviour was very

indecent.

6. Regarding the income of the

respondent, the petitioner stated that he was

earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month from his

fertilizer business, but the same was denied by

the respondent and he stated that he was a

partner with his brothers in the business. He

has also stated that the petitioner has got

independent income and that he has been paying

Rs.3,000/- every month to her in obedience to

order in C.Misc.No.117/2009. She is able to

maintain herself and in this view, she cannot

claim maintenance from him.

7. The Family Court, after holding an

enquiry, recorded the finding that the very fact

of respondent filing M.C.No.34/2009 for

dissolution of marriage and his paying Rs.3,000/-

:: 7 ::

to the petitioner pursuant to order in

C.Misc.No.117/2009, a proceeding under the

provisions of Prevention of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, would prima-facie show

that the respondent refused and neglected to

maintain the petitioner. Regarding income of the

respondent, it is held by the Family Court that he

has good income from his business and every

year the business income is steadily increasing.

In these circumstances, the Family Court

directed the respondent to pay Rs.15,000/-

every month to the petitioner towards

maintenance in addition to Rs.3,000/- being paid

by him already pursuant to order in

C.Misc.No.117/2009.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the Family

Court, the respondent has filed revision petition

for reducing the maintenance, and that the

petitioner's grievance in her revision petition is :: 8 ::

that the maintenance granted to her is too less

and she has sought enhancement to Rs.50,000/-

per month.

    9.   I    heard    the       argument      of   Sri

H.C.Shivaramu,    learned        counsel      for   the

respondent. The petitioner appeared in person

and argued her case.

10. Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel

submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal

i.e., Criminal Appeal No.70/2010 challenging the

order in C.Misc.No.117/2009, and in that appeal

the respondent was directed to secure a separate

residence for the sake of the petitioner. In

obedience to the said order, the respondent took

a house for her at Mandya on a monthly rent of

Rs.2,750/-, but she has not so far occupied the

same, instead she is living in a rented house at

Mysuru paying rent of Rs.15,000/- per month.

:: 9 ::

He also argued that she owns a house at

Palanahalli. She is in politics and director of

many societies and institutions. In view of these

circumstances, the Family Court should not have

provided maintenance of Rs.15,000/-; it is very

exorbitant. The respondent has the

responsibility of providing education to his

daughters and performing their marriages. He

has no independent business, but he is partner in

fertilizer business. He also submitted that there

are a few more aspects to be brought on record

to show that the petitioner is not entitled to

claim maintenance, if not, to reduce the

maintenance amount and in this view he also

argued for remanding the case to the Family

Court.

11. The petitioner also submitted that the

Family Court has not properly assessed the

income of the respondent. She admitted that :: 10 ::

she is in politics, but her further submission is

that she is doing social service being in politics

and she has no independent income. She

referred to some documents which according to

her indicate that the respondent is capable of

paying Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance.

12. I have considered the arguments. It is

not in dispute that the respondent is paying

maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the

petitioner as per the order in C.Misc.

No.117/2009, and that he took a house for rent

at Mandya as per the order in Criminal Appeal

No.70/2010. It is not disputed that the house

has not been occupied by the petitioner so far

and the respondent has retained the vacant

house by regularly paying the monthly rent of

Rs.2,750/-. This is an unnecessary burden on

the respondent if the petitioner does not want to :: 11 ::

occupy the house. She has no justifiable reason

for not occupying the said house.

13. Sri H.C.Shivaramu, counsel for the

respondent and the petitioner referred to some

documents which had not been produced by the

parties during inquiry in the Family Court. Sri

H.C.Shivaramu has filed photographs of a house

situate at Palanahalli which is said to be

belonging to the petitioner and of some political

functions in which she participated with

prominent political leaders. The petitioner does

not deny her participation in the functions. The

petitioner and the respondent have filed

statements of their assets and liabilities. If the

statement produced by the petitioner is seen, it

can be noticed that she is paying rent of

Rs.15,000/- per month for the house in Mysuru,

where she is living she requires Rs.15,000/- for

household expenses, Rs.10,000/- for :: 12 ::

transportation and Rs.10,000/- for medicines.

Besides, she has stated that her brother is

dependent on her and she requires Rs.20,000/-

every month for his treatment. She might have

given these details to show that she requires

Rs.50,000/- per month for her expenses, but it

also gives an indication that she herself may be

managing to meet all these expenses. Moreover

there is an allegation that the respondent owns

many benami properties. At the same time he

denies of having independent business in

fertilizers. It is not a fact to be ignored that the

respondent has two grown up daughters, and

their education and marriage are the

responsibilities to be shouldered by him.

Unfortunately, if cross examination of the

witnesses is seen, it appears that the learned

counsel for either side parties who cross-

examined the witnesses might have thought that :: 13 ::

by giving mere suggestions, their responsibility

would be over. Cross examination is ineffective.

Truth has not surfaced. For all these reasons I

am of the opinion that the matter deserves

reconsideration.

14. The parties are at liberty to produce

such other additional documents as may be

necessary including the documents that are

produced in these revision petitions. The parties

may adduce further evidence, and they may also

be cross-examined in the light of information

disclosed in their statements of assets and

liabilities. With these observations, the

following:

ORDER

Both revision petitions are allowed.

The order dated 30.11.2018 in C.Misc.No.516/2015 on the file of the II :: 14 ::

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, is set-aside.

The matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh adjudication, and the parties are permitted to adduce further evidence and produce any document/s that they may think necessary, but subject to relevancy.

The respondent-husband shall continue to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the petitioner/ wife as per the order of this Court dated 18.11.2019 till disposal of the case on merits.

The Court below shall expedite the disposal of the case subject to co-operation by the parties. The trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

The parties shall appear before the court below on 27.06.2022.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-