Karnataka High Court

K.Harshavardhana Reddy vs Smt.Seelam Savithri on 6 January, 2023

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

                          -1-




                                    RPFC No. 100153 of 2017


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
                        BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
    REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100153 OF 2017 (-)
BETWEEN:
K.HARSHAVARDHANA REDDY
S/O K. BALIREDDY,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O: NO.28/458, BALAJI VEEDHI,
R.S. POST OFFICE, NOONEPALLI,
NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-518502.
                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GIRISH V BHAT, ADV. FOR
 SRI.S.S.YADRAMI, SR.COUNSEL)

AND:
SMT.SEELAM SAVITHRI
W/O K. HARSHAVARDHANA REDDY,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: C/O. S. ANKIREDDY
OPP: RTO OFFICE, CANTONMENT,
BALLARI-583104.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G PATIL, ADV.)
     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DTD:11.09.2017 CRL.MISC. NO.315/2015, ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-




                                      RPFC No. 100153 of 2017


                           ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner-

husband, aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2017 passed

in Crl.Misc.315/2015, on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Family Court'), in and by which the Family Court had

directed the petitioner-husband herein to pay a sum of

Rs.20,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance to

respondent-wife.

2. The aforesaid petition was filed by the

respondent-wife contending that her marriage with the

petitioner-husband was solemnized on 13.02.2013 at

Nandihal as per the rights and customs prevailing in their

community. That the parents of the respondent-wife had

catered to all the demands of the petitioner-husband

including the demand for four plots to be transferred in the

name of the respondent-wife for the benefit of the

petitioner-husband. That apart, huge amount of cash and

jewelry was also given as demanded by the petitioner-

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

husband. Besides, expending enormous amount towards

marriage. That the petitioner within two days of the

marriage, subjected the respondent-wife to mental and

physical harassment insisting that the said four plots to be

transferred to his name.

3. It is also alleged that the petitioner was

involved in extra marital relationship. That the

respondent-wife was also subjected to physical threat. The

respondent was driven out of the matrimonial home on

23.12.2013. Ever since then, the respondent has been

staying with her parents. The respondent was ever ready

and willing to join the petitioner-husband, she had even

filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights despite the

same, the husband had filed petition for divorce in the

Family Court at Nandihal.

4. The petition which was filed by the respondent

for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed and she had

also filed execution petition seeking enforcement of the

said order. In the circumstance, the respondent not being

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

able to maintain herself as she was completely neglected

by the petitioner-husband, she had filed petition for

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

5. The petitioner-husband resisted the said

petition denying the petition averments and allegations. It

was contended that four sites, which was purchased in the

name of the respondent was never intended to be given to

the petitioner. The unusual and abnormal behaviour of the

respondent had created commotion in the life of the

petitioner. That the respondent had left matrimonial home

on her own. The petitioner had tried to convince her but

the respondent accused and blamed him of his character

and also alleged him of being impotent. That she never

discharged matrimonial obligations. That the petitioner

had no fixed income. He was carrying on business as a

sleeping partner prior to the marriage which he dis-

continued and he is earning his livelihood by agricultural

activities and he is not in a position to cater to the

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

luxurious demands of the respondent. Hence, sought for

rejection of the petition.

6. The Family Court framed points for its

consideration and recorded the evidence and on

appreciation of materials made available on record, held

that the petitioner had deliberately deserted the

respondent and had neglected to provide maintenance and

also taking into consideration the evidence with regard to

income and capability of the petitioner and the

requirement of the respondent, had allowed the petition

directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as

monthly maintenance. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner is before this Court.

7. Sri.Girish V.Bhat, learned counsel for the

petitioner-husband apart from reiterating the grounds

urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the

petitioner has rendered incapable of any earning, as he

has undergone liver transplantation. His health is not

permitting him to carry on even agricultural activities. He

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

further submits that the petitioner has now obtained order

of divorce dissolving the marriage in terms of the

judgment and order dated 19.01.2022 passed in MAT

No.71/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Bellary. He also submits that the respondent is

sufficiently protected by means of four plots, which she

had admitted in her evidence before the Family Court. He

submits that the award of maintenance should only be to

meet bare and basic requirements and cannot be the

means for luxurious demands. He therefore submits that

the order passed by the Family Court directing the

petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- is unreasonable and

exorbitant. Hence, seeks for interference.

8. Sri.Manjunath G.Patil, learned counsel

appearing for respondent-wife justifying the order passed

by the Family Court submits that respondent-wife is

completely dependent on her parents. The plots alleged to

be in the name of the respondent do not belong to her and

the same belongs to her father and has been distributed

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

amongst her siblings. She does not have any independent

source of income. He submits that the petition for divorce

is earlier filed by the petitioner before Nandihal Court,

resulted in dismissal which fact was suppressed by the

petitioner while second petition was filed for divorce at

Family Court, Bellary. That the petitioner has been making

contradictory statement with regard to his source of

income as in some proceedings he is claiming to be an

agriculturist and in some proceedings, he is claiming to be

a contractor. That the petitioner has not come with any

clean hands. Therefore he is not entitled for any relief. He

further submits that though divorce has been granted wife

is still entitled for maintenance. In view of the ill-health of

the father of the respondent, who was the only source of

her support and who now is bed ridden, respondent has no

other source for her survival. He also submits that the

respondent and the petitioner stayed together for only six

months. He submits that petition may be dismissed

warranting interference.

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the respondent and perused the records.

10. The fact that the petitioner was married to the

respondent is not denied. The fact that now the marriage

having been dissolved is also in dispute. Counsel for the

respondent submits that she is contemplating filing of

appeal challenging the order of divorce. Be that as it is.

This Court by order dated 29.11.2018 had passed an

interim order of stay directing the petitioner herein to

deposit 50% of the maintenance amount awarded by the

Family Court from the date of petition till the date of order

and it was made clear that if the said amount was not

deposited within the period of six weeks, interim order

would stand automatically vacated and the respondent

would be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the

case. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not

complied with the said interim order and was in arrears of

payment of maintenance constraining the respondent to

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

initiate execution proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner

approached this Court seeking stay of the matter.

11. At again, this Court by order dated 24.03.2022

had directed the petitioner-husband to deposit

Rs.1,50,000/- being part of arrears of maintenance. The

petitioner's counsel submits that the said amount has now

been deposited. However, he had not paid or deposited

the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as ordered by this Court. The

petitioner has not complied with the interim order made by

this Court except depositing Rs.1,50,000/-. The fact

remains that the petitioner has not complied with the

order passed by the Family Court requiring him to pay

maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.

12. Having argued the matter as above, counsel for

the petitioner fairly submits that the amount of

Rs.20,000/- per month being exorbitant, the same be

reduced to Rs.12,500/-.Counsel for the respondent

submits that reduction of the sum to Rs.12,500/- per

month would be too meager considering the requirement

- 10 -

RPFC No. 100153 of 2017

of the respondent. He however submits that Rs.15,000/-

per month would be reasonable considering the fact

situation of the matter.

13. In view of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and respondent and considering

the fact situation of the matter, this Court is of the view

that a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month would be a

reasonable amount of maintenance per month. Accordingly

the following:

ORDER

a. Petition is partly allowed.

b. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.12,500/- per

month and also to pay arrears of maintenance

calculated at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month

from the date of this petition within 12 weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

c. It is made clear that the petitioner shall continue

to pay the amount of Rs.12,500/- to the

respondent on the 5th of every calendar month.