Karnataka High Court
Sri.Umesh H L vs Smt.Jyothi on 3 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22803
RPFC No. 136 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 136 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI UMESH H.L.
S/O. LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MEGALA HANDI,
HANDI POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT-570 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAY KASHYAP S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.JYOTHI
W/O. UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI,
by SHARANYA T
AVATI POST,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK
KARNATAKA AND DISTRICT-570 201.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023
PASSED IN CRI.MISC.NO.112/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22803
RPFC No. 136 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This revision petition is filed against the order dated
02.05.2023 passed in Cri.Misc.No.112/2022 on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, allowing the
petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance,
wherein the Court has granted maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per
month to the wife.
3. It is the contention that the Court has also taken
note of the fact that the respondent herein has pleaded before
the Court that this petitioner is running U.S. Paying Guest
House for Women and Men. The respondent has also pleaded
that the petitioner is also running U. Solution and G. Esquare
Consultancy and getting the income. But, in the evidence, this
petitioner took the defence that he is working in the said
company and not produced any document to prove the fact
that he is working there. Hence, the Trial Court taking into
note of the maintenance claimed and also the fact that the
respondent is residing in a rented house at Chikkamagalur
Taluk and District and also considering the very pleading that
NC: 2023:KHC:22803
RPFC No. 136 of 2023
the petitioner is working in the said U. Solutions and G.
Esquare Consultancy and except the oral evidence, he has not
placed any document before the Court, comes to the conclusion
that the respondent has obtained a house on rent and this
shows that his financial position is very good. From the
available evidence, it can be very well gathered that the
minimum monthly income of the respondent is Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.60,000/- and considering the social status to which the
parties belong and the income of the respondent, awarded a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance. Hence, the
petitioner-husband has filed this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Court has awarded maintenance
of Rs.20,000/- per month by presuming his income and the
same is based on surmises and conjectures and hence, the very
approach of the Court is erroneous. The reasoning given by
the Court is also not based on any material and only presumed
that the petitioner is getting income of Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.60,000/- per month. The counsel also would contend that
the petitioner categorically stated that his earning is
Rs.10,000/- per month and he is working in the company and
NC: 2023:KHC:22803
RPFC No. 136 of 2023
inspite of it, the Court passed such an order. The Court also
committed an error in not taking into consideration the fact
that the respondent is a graduate and well qualified and
previously, she was earning.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also on perusal of the material on record, the Trial Court
has extracted the evidence in Para No.11 and also in Para
No.12 taken note of the production of documents i.e., Exs.P7
and P8 i.e., the complaint given by the respondent herein for
neglecting her and subjecting her for cruelty. The Court also in
Para No.17 observed that the Court has to take note of the
status of the parties by relying upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in RAJNESH VS. NEHA reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.
The Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner
herein has not produced any document with regard to his
income and even, not filed any affidavit about his assets and
liabilities and apart from that, the Court has also taken note of
the fact that the petitioner contend that he is working in U.
Solutions and G. Esquare Consultancy but, not produced any
material before the Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:22803
RPFC No. 136 of 2023
6. However, it is the case of the respondent-wife that
the petitioner is running the same and she has has specifically
pleaded that the petitioner is running the same but, he claims
that he is only an employee and there is no document to prove
the same, except the oral evidence. Hence, having considered
the status of the parties as well as the cost and standard of
living, the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month as awarded
by the Court is not exorbitant as contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in
the petition.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
