Pavan Kumar vs Swati
2023 Latest Caselaw 4654 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC-K:5529
                                                          RPFC No. 200027 of 2023




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH
                              DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
                                              BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                                      RPFC NO. 200027 OF 2023
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   PAVAN KUMAR S/O MADIVALAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                            OCC. ENGINEER, R/AT KALKERI VILLAGE,
                            TALIKOTE TALUK
                            VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. SANTOSH S GOGI, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.   SWATI W/O PAVAN KUMAR
                            AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                            OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                            R/AT OPPOSITE GOVT. SCHOOL,
                            ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
                            RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY SRI.RAVI BHIMSINGH CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed by
RAMESH MATHAPATI       SRI.MAHANTESH H.DESAI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA

                              THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
                       ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL.
                       JUDGE FAMILY COURT RAICHUR IN CRL. MISC. No.211/2021
                       VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2022, PASS SUCH OTHER
                       SUITABLE ORDERS OR ORDER AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT
                       DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE.


                            THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                       THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC-K:5529
                                       RPFC No. 200027 of 2023




                           ORDER

1. The husband is before this Court challenging the

order of monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the wife.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband contends

that the award of Rs.4,000/- per month would be

exorbitant, having regard to the fact that a sum of

Rs.3,000/- has already been awarded as interim

maintenance in the proceedings initiated under the

Domestic Violence Act. He submitted that the petitioner,

though a Diploma holder, had lost his job due to Covid and

was presently staying in his village and carrying out

agricultural activities and he was obliged to look after his

mother and other family members and he hardly had any

income to take care of his mother and sisters. It is

submitted that the petitioner would not be able to afford

payment of Rs.7,000/- per month out of the earnings from

his agricultural lands and therefore the impugned order

was required to be set aside.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:5529 RPFC No. 200027 of 2023

3. An argument is also advanced that the wife had

admitted that it had been agreed upon that they would

live in Bengaluru and due to the Pandemic he had lost his

job and was residing in the village and this by itself was

indicative of his inability to earn a living, cannot be

accepted.

4. It is no doubt true that due to the Pandemic several

jobs were lost but the Pandemic but there is no evidence

forthcoming to show that the husband continued to live in

village and was unable to secure a job. In my view, this

evidence of the wife rendered in the context of the

prevailing Pandemic cannot be used by the husband to

escape his obligation to pay maintenance.

5. The evidence on record indicates that the husband

was working in Bengaluru and he was technically qualified.

According to the learned counsel for the husband, he was

earning only a sum of Rs.12,000/- and he has lost that job

also and therefore it would be impossible for him to pay a

sum of Rs.7,000/-.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:5529 RPFC No. 200027 of 2023

6. In order to establish that the husband was working in

Bengaluru only for Rs.12,000/- and that he has lost his

job, no evidence is forthcoming except the self-serving

statement of the husband. If a person was technically

qualified and was able secure a job in Bengaluru, it pre-

supposes that he would be earning a decent income to

sustain himself at Bengaluru. The further fact that the

RTCs produced indicate that he also had agricultural

income would indicate that the husband had sufficient

means to maintain himself and also his wife and other

family members.

7. An argument is also sought to be advanced that the

wife is a talented tailor and she could earn her own living.

The wife is admittedly residing in a village and even

assuming that she had to live in a town, the possibility of

her earning an income to maintain herself from her

avocation as a tailor would be impossible.

8. In my view, the Trial Court has taken into

consideration all the factors including the fact of

NC: 2023:KHC-K:5529 RPFC No. 200027 of 2023

Rs.3,000/- being awarded under the Domestic Violence Act

and has granted a sum of Rs.4,000/- under the

proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also to be

borne in mind that having regard to the fact of the present

cost of living, the sum of Rs.7,000/- awarded to the wife

cannot be said to be in any way irrational or exorbitant. I

find no reason to entertain the petition and the petition is

therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MSR