Karnataka High Court

Sri Niranjan R vs Smt Veena H P on 6 November, 2023

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:39400
                                                         WP No. 15798 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 15798 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. NIRANJAN R.,
                      S/O RAMACHANDRA B.R.,
                      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                      R/AT THOTADHA MANE,
                      PURA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      DIDAGA POST,
                      HIRISAVE HOBLI,
                      CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK,
                      HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 141.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SMT. RADIKA M., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

Digitally signed by   SMT. VEENA H.P.,
PADMAVATHI B K
                      D/O E. PUTTARAJU,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              W/O SRI. NIRANJAN R.,
KARNATAKA             AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                      #36/1, 5TH CROSS,
                      GANGADARAPPA LAYOUT,
                      PAPAREDDYPALYA,
                      NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE,
                      BENGALURU - 560 072.
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2023:KHC:39400
                                             WP No. 15798 of 2023




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH                           THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/06/2023 PASSED ON IA NO
03/2022, IN MC NO.2461/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE I
ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, AT
ANNEXURE-E THEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

     THIS     PETITION,       COMING     ON     FOR       PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is before

this Court calling in question an order dated 01.06.2023 passed

in M.C.No.2461/2019 by which the learned Magistrate awards

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the wife every month

from the date of the application.

2. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is

the wife. The two get married on 26.05.2016. It transpires

that the relationship between the husband and the wife

flounders and on such floundering of the relationship, the

husband initiates proceedings in M.C.No.2461/2019 seeking

annulment of marriage. After the initiation of the said

proceedings, the respondent - wife initiates proceedings under

NC: 2023:KHC:39400 WP No. 15798 of 2023

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The concerned

Court awards maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the wife

along with Rs.5,000/- as a one time litigation expenses. The

husband is before this Court calling in question the said order.

3. The solitary submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in

fact in a job, as Area Sales Manager in the Sangeeta Mobile

Pvt. ltd. and has left the job now and has taken to agriculture

and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the amount that is

ordered by the concerned Court. The said submission is noted

only to be rejected, as if, the husband has no avocation, it is

his duty to search for a job and maintain the wife. If

indulgence is shown on such plea of the petitioner, it would run

foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANJU

GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1, wherein

at paragraphs 10 to 14 has held as follows:

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The

2022 SCC Online SC 1314

NC: 2023:KHC:39400 WP No. 15798 of 2023

Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the

NC: 2023:KHC:39400 WP No. 15798 of 2023

allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife.

12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.

13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able- bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife,

NC: 2023:KHC:39400 WP No. 15798 of 2023

over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.

14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him."

(emphasis supplied) In the light of the solitary submission and the said

submission being negative by the Apex Court in the afore-

quoted judgment, there is no merit to entertain the petition,

the petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CT:SNN