Karnataka High Court
Smt Roopa N S vs Sri N Ramakrishna on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
MFA No.3001 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3001 OF 2015 (FC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ROOPA N.S.
D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY K
Digitally AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
signed by R/AT NO.52, 3RD CROSS
RUPA V 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK
Location: SHAKTHIGANAPATHINAGARA
High Court of
Karnataka BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BANGALORE 560 079.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BINDU U, ADV., FOR
SRI. S.G. MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. N. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O N. NARASIMHAIAYA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SEA COLLEGE ROAD
YEKANTHANAGARA
AYAAPPANAGARA
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE 560 036.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N. RAMAKRISHNA,
RESPONDENT SERVED)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:06.11.2014 PASSED IN M.C NO.2057/2009 ON THE
-2-
MFA No.3001 of 2015
FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S
13(1)(ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR DISSOLUTION OF
MARRIAGE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt.Bindu U., learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against judgment dated
06.11.2014 passed by the Family Court by which the
petition filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty has been allowed and
she has been held entitled to permanent alimony at the
rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. Being dissatisfied with the
quantum of permanent alimony, the appellant has filed
this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of
permanent alimony.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the marriage between the parties was
MFA No.3001 of 2015
solemnized on 27.03.1997 in Bangalore. Out of the
wedlock, a daughter was born to the parties.
3. According to the appellant, she was subjected to
cruelty in her matrimonial home. Therefore, she filed a
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 on 20.07.2009 seeking a decree of divorce. The
respondent contested the matter. The Family Court,
however, vide judgment dated 06.11.2014 inter alia held
that the appellant has proved the allegation of cruelty
and therefore, is entitled to a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty. It was further held that the
respondent runs a tea stall and is employed as a Coolie
and his monthly income is Rs.6,000/- p.m. The Family
Court therefore held the appellant to be entitled to
permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. Being
aggrieved by the quantum of permanent alimony, the
appellant / wife has filed this appeal.
MFA No.3001 of 2015
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the respondent has a share in the joint family
property and the respondent runs a tea stall as well.
Therefore, his income is much more than Rs.6,000/-
p.m. However, learned counsel for the appellant fairly
submitted that the appellant has not filed an affidavit
regarding her assets and liabilities.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. We have considered the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant and have perused the record.
This Court, by an order dated 22.06.2022, had directed
the appellant to file statement regarding assets and
liabilities in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
RAJNESH Vs. NEHA AND ANOTHER1. Thereafter,
learned counsel for the appellant, on 17.01.2023 prayed
for an adjournment to enable her to file an affidavit.
However, when the matter is taken up today, learned
2020 SCC Online SC 903
MFA No.3001 of 2015
counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is not
in a position to file the affidavit regarding assets and
liabilities. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be
drawn against the appellant. The Family Court, on the
basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant i.e.
Ex.P6, a copy of the sale deed dated 15.12.2013 as well
as copy of RTC Ex.P7 and the oral evidence of the
parties, has recorded a finding that monthly salary of
the respondent is between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/-.
The Family Court, by taking into account the income of
the respondent as well as the status of the parties, has
held the appellant to be entitled to a permanent alimony
of Rs.2,000/- p.m. for maintenance of herself and her
child. The appellant has not been able to point out any
material on record to show that the respondent earns
more than Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- p.m. From the
evidence on record, it appears that the respondent is
employed as a Coolie and had a tea stall. Therefore, on
the basis of material available on record, the Family
MFA No.3001 of 2015
Court has rightly concluded that the monthly income of
the respondent is between Rs.6,000/- and Rs.7,000/-.
Out of the aforesaid income, 1/3 of the amount is
directed to be paid to the appellant and her daughter on
account of the permanent alimony. The finding with
regard to grant of permanent alimony is based on
meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which
does not call for any interference in this appeal.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in this appeal.
The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
