Karnataka High Court

Smt Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani vs Lakshmeesha M C on 14 July, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde

                                       -1-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB
                                                  MFA No. 3108 of 2016




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                    PRESENT
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                       AND
                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3108 OF 2016 (FC)
              BETWEEN:

              SMT. PRABHAVATHI @ PRABHAMANI,
              W/O. LAKSHMEESHA,
              AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
              C/O M.L.CHANAPPA,
              R/AT MATHRU NILAYA,
              9TH CROSS, S.S.PURAM,
              TUMKUR - 02.
                                                          ...APPELLANT
              (BY SMT.BINDU U., ADVOCATE FOR
              SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S. G., ADVOCATE)

              AND:

Digitally     LAKSHMEESHA M. C.,
signed by     S/O M.L.CHANNAPPA,
PRAMILA G V   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Location:     NO.33, DEVINIVAS,
HIGH COURT    BETWEEN 12TH AND 13TH CROSS,
OF            MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
KARNATAKA     BANGALORE - 560 003.
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
              (BY SRI SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADVOCATE)
                   THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT
              AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.2.2016
              PASSED IN M.C NO.615/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE II
              ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU,
              ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF
              HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
                               -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB
                                         MFA No. 3108 of 2016




    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal by the wife under Section 19(1) of the Family

Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the judgment dated

12.02.2016 passed by the Family Court, Bengaluru by which

petition filed by the respondent/husband, seeking dissolution of

marriage has been allowed and the marriage performed

between the parties on 10.11.1991 has been dissolved by a

decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the

marriage between the parties was solemnised on 10.11.1991

and from the wedlock a son was born to them. Admittedly, the

son is a software engineer and is now aged about 30 years. It

is also not in dispute that the respondent holds educational

qualifications of BE, MBA as well as LLB and is employed as

Manager - Technical, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,

Bengaluru. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in RAJNESH vs NEHA AND ANOTHER

reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, this Court by an order dated

20.03.2023 directed the parties to file affidavits pertaining to

NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB MFA No. 3108 of 2016

their assets and liabilities. The parties have filed their affidavits

of assets and liabilities.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

her grievance in this appeal is only confined to the grant of

permanent alimony. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the appellant is a housewife and is staying in a

matrimonial home with her mother-in-law. It is submitted that

the mother-in-law of the appellant is an old person and the

appellant takes care of her mother-in-law. It is also submitted

that in a suit for partition filed by the respondent as well as

other members of the family, a preliminary decree for partition

has already been passed in respect of the matrimonial home

where the appellant is presently residing. It is also submitted

that in case the decree is executed, the wife would be required

to vacate the matrimonial home. It is submitted that a sum of

Rs.25.00 lakhs by way of permanent alimony be awarded to

the appellant/wife.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that after payment of tax, the net salary of

the respondent is Rs.1,48,000/-. It is further submitted that

NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB MFA No. 3108 of 2016

the respondent has neither any dependents nor any properties.

However, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the

respondent that in the year 2014, the respondent has sold the

properties for a sum of Rs.31,95,000/-. It is also pointed out

that the respondent is due to retire on 30.11.2023 and does

not have a pensionary job. However, the fact that the

respondent shall get retiral dues on his superannuation, is not

disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and perused the records.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

RAJNESH supra has laid down the criteria for determining the

quantum of maintenance. Paragraphs 77 to 82 of the aforesaid

decision is reproduced below for the facility of reference.

"77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB MFA No. 3108 of 2016

78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290].

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent

NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB MFA No. 3108 of 2016

income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339].

NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB MFA No. 3108 of 2016

81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

82. Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same,

(iv) value of the claimant's property and any income

NC: 2023:KHC:24532-DB MFA No. 3108 of 2016

derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source."

7. On the touchstone of aforesaid well-settled legal

principles, to determine the quantum of maintenance payable

to the wife, we may advert to the evidence on record.

8. From the perusal of the affidavit of assets and

liabilities, filed by the parties, it is evident that the appellant is

a housewife and has no source of income. The respondent is

employed as Manager - Technical in Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike and is earning a monthly salary of

Rs.1,48,000/- after deduction of tax.