M.Ravi Narayana Reddy vs Smt. Kodgehalli Gopalappa ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 140 Kant

                            1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                      PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             M.F.A.No.7455/ 2013 (FC)
                       C/W
             M.F.A.No.4854/ 2013 (FC)

IN M.F.A. NO.7455/2013:

BETWEEN:

SMT. KODIGEHALLI GOPALAPPA KAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O V. GOPALAPPA
R/A NO.604, 2ND C CROSS
II BLOCK, 6TH MAIN
HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
V. GOPALAPPA
S/O DYAVANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.604, 2ND C CROSS
II BLOCK, 6TH MAIN
HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043.                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. BINDU U, ADV., FOR
SRI HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADV.)

AND:

SRI RAVI NARAYANA REDDY M
S/O N. MALLAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT BLOCK 757
                               2

NO.10-468, YISHUN STREET 72
SINGAPORE - 760 757.                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S. SHANKRAPPA, ADV,)

     THIS MFA FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED19.03.2013
PASSED IN M.C NO.1492/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC 13(1)(ia) OF THE
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

IN M.F.A. NO.4854/2013:

BETWEEN:

M. RAVI NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O N. MALLAIAH REDDY
RESIDING AT BLOCK - 757
NO.10-468, YISHUN STREET 72
SKINGAPORE - 760 757.                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI S. SHANKRAPP, ADV.)

AND:

SMT. KODIGEHALLI GOPALAPPA KAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O V. GOPALAPPA
R/A NO.168, JALAN BUKIT MERAH
NO.9-01, SURBANA ONE
SINGAPORE - 150 168.                    ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT BINDU U., ADV., FOR
SRI S.G. MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADV)

      THIS MFA FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED19.03.2013
PASSED IN M.C.O.1492/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED U/S 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

    THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               3

                    JUDGMENT

These two appeals filed under Section 19(1) of the

Family Courts Act, 1984, arise out of the judgment and

decree dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.1492/2007, and

therefore, both the appeals are heard together and

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

parties and also perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the

records that may be necessary for the disposal of these

appeals are, the marriage of the appellant-wife with the

respondent-husband was solemnized on 21.02.2005. The

appellant had filed M.C.No.1492/2007 under Section

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the

Act') with a prayer for dissolution of the marriage on the

ground of cruelty. The said petition was allowed, but the

Family Court had failed to grant the relief of permanent

alimony, and therefore, the appellant had filed

M.F.A.No.4424/2009 and in the said appeal, this Court

upon confirming the judgment and decree passed under

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, had remitted the matter to

the Family Court for re-consideration of the matter in so

far as it relates to grant of permanent alimony.

4. Thereafter, the parties had appeared before the

Family Court on 23.01.2012 and the Family Court had

granted opportunity to the parties to adduce additional

evidence, and accordingly, the appellant had examined

herself as PW-1 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P-

4 to P-17 in support of her case, and the respondent had

examined himself as RW-1 and got marked 4 documents

as Exs.R-4 to R-7. The Family Court vide the impugned

judgment had partly allowed the claim for permanent

alimony and had directed the respondent-husband to pay

permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month

to the appellant-wife from the date of dissolution of the

marriage i.e., 18.02.2009 till the lifetime of the appellant

or till the date of her remarriage, whichever is earlier.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-wife

has filed M.F.A.No.7455/2013, while the respondent-

husband has filed M.F.A.No.4854/2013.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that

the Family Court has not properly appreciated the

evidence placed on record and has erred in granting only

a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as permanent alimony.

She submits that considering the income and status of

the respondent, the amount awarded by the Family Court

is very meager and the same requires to be enhanced.

She submits that the respondent is earning more than

Rs.2 lakhs per month, and therefore, the Family Court

has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.10,000/- per

month as alimony to the appellant.

6. This Court vide order dated 21.06.2022 had

granted time to the appellant's counsel to file an affidavit

regarding her assets and liabilities. Thereafter, though

time was granted on four dates to the appellant to file

her affidavit regarding her assets and liabilities, till date

she has not filed the same.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted

that inspite of she giving necessary instructions to the

appellant, she has not come forward to file the assets

and liabilities affidavit as directed by this Court and she

has also submitted that the appellant has remarried in

the year 2017.

8. The material on record would go to show that

the appellant was earlier working in Singapore in a

private company. In her cross-examination, she has

admitted that she is drawing a monthly salary of

Rs.40,000/- from her employment. The respondent in his

deposition has stated that after the decree of divorce, he

has married one Subadra Ramaiah in the year 2010 and

from the said marriage, he has a son. He has also

deposed that he was drawing a salary of 4,000 singapore

dollars per month, which would be equivalent to Rs.2

lakhs per month in Indian currency.

9. The learned Judge of the Family Court having

appreciated the material placed on record has awarded

permanent alimony of Rs.10,000/- per month to the

appellant-wife from the date of dissolution of the

marriage till the lifetime of the appellant or till the date of

her remarriage. The appellant has admittedly remarried

in the year 2017. Though sufficient opportunity was

granted to the appellant to file an affidavit regarding her

assets and liabilities, she has not come forward to file the

said affidavit, and therefore, an adverse inference is

required to be drawn against her. The appellant has got

sufficient good earning from her employment and in

addition to the same, the learned Judge of the Family

Court has directed the respondent to pay a sum of

Rs.10,000/- per month towards permanent alimony/

maintenance. Undisputedly, the couple have no children

from the wedlock. Under the circumstances, we are of

the considered view that the appellant has not made out

any case for enhancing the permanent alimony/

maintenance awarded to her by the Family Court.

10. The respondent in his evidence has deposed

that he was earning salary of 4,000 dollars per month

which is equivalent to Rs.2 lakhs in Indian currency, and

therefore, payment of Rs.10,000/- per month to the

appellant would not be a burden to him and

undisputedly, he is having a higher income compared to

the income of the appellant. Under the circumstances, we

do not find any good ground to interfere with the

judgment and decree passed by the Family Court which

is challenged in these appeals. Accordingly, both the

appeals are dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK