Karnataka High Court
Sri Dayananda B S vs Smt Maneesha Rai A on 26 May, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe Byaaj, Arhj
-1-
MFA No. 7019 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7019 OF 2017 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI DAYANANDA B. S,
S/O LATE SHEENA RAI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
THAVOOR VILLAGE,
BHAGAMANDALA POST,
MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 247.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI THARANATH SHETTY K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT MANEESHA RAI A.,
W/O SRI.DAYANANDA B.S,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
Digitally signed
D/O MANOHAR RAI A.B.
by BELUR C/O SRI.PRADEEP RAI,
RANGADHAMA
NANDINI PRAJWAL RESIDENCE,
Location: HIGH LOHITH NAGAR, KUNTIKANA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OP: A.J.HOSPITAL,
MANGALURU D.K.DISTRICT-575 006,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SMT.MANEESHA RAI. A,
D/O SRI.MANOHARA RAI.A.B,
BANTRA VILLAGE, MARDALA POST,
KADABA, PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 230.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT RACHITHA RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. M INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA No. 7019 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.07.2017
PASSED IN M.C.NO.8/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED U/S 13(1)(i-a) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the husband is filed under Section 19(1) of
the Family Courts Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and
decree dated 07.07.2017 in M.C.No.8/2016. The petition filed
by the wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 is allowed and marriage solemnised between the parties
on 31.08.2014 is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The Family
Court awarded Rs.12.00 lakhs as alimony to the wife.
2. The parties to the proceeding are referred to as the
husband and wife.
3. Learned counsel for the wife on instructions
submitted that the wife has contracted second marriage on
05.09.2022 after the decree for dissolution of earlier marriage.
This being the position, learned counsel for the husband
MFA No. 7019 of 2017
submits that the appeal is confined only to the order of the
decree awarding Rs.12.00 lakhs as alimony.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the husband
and the learned counsel appearing for the wife.
5. The admitted pleadings would disclose that the
marriage was solemnised on 31.08.2014 and the husband was
working in Army. Learned counsel for the husband submitted
that the husband and wife lived together only for one month
and thereafter, the wife started residing with her parents.
The evidence on record would also disclose the fact that at the
time of marriage the parents of the husband spent Rs.4.00
lakhs and they also gave a diamond earring and a gold
necklace. The admitted fact is that the wife had filed a
complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.M.C.111/2015 on the
file of the JMFC-II, Mangaluru and in the said proceeding, the
Court had initially passed an order on 10.06.2015 granting
Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance and later same was
reduced to Rs.2,000/- per month in terms of order dated
05.03.2019. It is also stated at the bar that Rs.1,40,000/- is
MFA No. 7019 of 2017
paid by the husband pursuant to the order passed by the Court
in the proceeding under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
6. Learned counsel for the husband would submit that
alimony of Rs.12.00 lakhs awarded by the Family Court is on
higher side and given the fact that the wife stayed with the
husband only for a month and also that she has contracted
second marriage on 05.09.2022, the alimony payable has to be
set-aside. It is also his contention that the fact that the
husband has incurred Rs.4.00 lakhs towards marriage expenses
and has given a diamond earring and gold necklace to the wife
which should have been taken into consideration by the Family
Court and the Family Court ought to have dismissed the claim
for alimony.
7. Learned counsel for the wife would submit that the
petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty is duly established and it is on account of cruel act of
the husband, the wife had to stay away and seek a decree for
dissolution of marriage. Once her petition is allowed, she is
entitled to alimony from the husband as his obligation to
MFA No. 7019 of 2017
maintain the divorced wife continue even after the divorce. It
is the further submission of the learned counsel that given the
fact that the husband is employed in Army and the permanent
alimony is awarded and also considering the fact that the wife
was aged 26 years when the petition was filed, the alimony of
Rs.12.00 lakhs awarded is a reasonable sum.
8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the bar and also perused the records.
9. The admitted factual position is that the husband has
incurred Rs.4.00 lakhs for the marriage and has given diamond
earring and gold necklace to the wife and both the ornaments
are with the wife. It is also forth coming that the husband has
so far paid Rs.1,40,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the
Court in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, the subsequent
development that the wife has contracted second marriage on
05.09.2022 is also an important factor that is required to be
taken into consideration while permanent alimony. The said
alimony of Rs.12.00 lakhs was awarded as an alimony
presumably on the premise that wife has to be dependent on
MFA No. 7019 of 2017
alimony for the rest of her life at that time. Since, the wife has
contracted second marriage, she is no longer dependent on the
alimony of her husband from the first marriage. Subsequent
development i.e., second marriage contracted by the wife is
certainly an important factor that is to be taken into
consideration while quantifying the alimony payable.
10. It is also required to be noticed that the wife was
earning Rs.32,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month as seen from
Ex.R.6. By taking into consideration all these factors, this
Court is of the view that the alimony awarded by the Family
Court in favour of the wife has to be reduced to R.5.00 lakhs.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree are partially
set-aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The judgment and decree dated 07.07.2017
passed by the Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru in
M.C. No.08/2016 are partially set-aside and the
respondent/wife is held entitled to alimony of
Rs.5.00 lakhs from the appellant/husband.
MFA No. 7019 of 2017
(ii) The appellant/husband shall pay Rs.5.00 lakhs
within two months from the date of this order
failing which the alimony of Rs.5.00 lakhs shall
carry 6% interest per annum from this date till
payment.
(iii) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
brn
