Karnataka High Court
Smt H R Rajamma vs Sri H R Rajeev on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
RPFC No. 58 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 58 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. H.R. RAJAMMA
W/O LATE RANGE GOWDA
AND D/O LATE RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/A NO.824, 3RD STAGE,
GOKULAM, VANI VILAS MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. H.R. RAJEEV
S/O LATE RANGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT 415/A, KANTUR ROAD,
1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE,
GOKULAM, MYSURU-570002
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE)
SUMA
Location:
HIGH THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DECREE DATED 09.04.2021
PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.719/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C., FOR
MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
RPFC No. 58 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.04.2021
passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at
Mysuru in C.Misc.No.719/2019 by which, it enhanced the
maintenance awarded by the Trial Court from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.15,000/- per month and directed the respondent to pay a
sum of Rs.50,000/- per annum towards her medical expenses.
2. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent. The
petitioner claimed that the respondent is her son and that the
property situate at Gokulam, Mysuru, was purchased by her
father and she constructed a marriage hall over the said
property. She claimed that the respondent with an ulterior
motive, took signature on certain blank papers, which she
signed in good faith. Later, it turned out that the signed papers
were misused to create a gift deed gifting the said property to
her husband. She contended that her husband died and it came
to her knowledge that the respondent had taken the property
by way of gift deed. She contended that she was neglected
and not maintained by the respondent. She also contended
that she had no source of income and that the respondent did
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
not take care of her food, clothing, shelter or medicines etc.,
She claimed that she was in need of a sum of Rs.25,000/- per
month for her maintenance.
3. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the
respondent, who contended that the property in question was
purchased by his father in the name of the petitioner and that
the petitioner executed the gift deed conveying the property to
his father. He claimed that his father had constructed the
building by raising a loan and bequeathed the said property to
the respondent. He claimed that the petitioner was getting
sufficient income from the property of her parents and
therefore, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance from
the respondent. Besides this, he contended that his father had
raised a loan to construct a building on the property and that
the rent generated from the building was used to pay up the
EMIs. He contended that except the rent from the building, he
has no other source of income and therefore, he contended that
the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the
respondent.
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
4. Based on this contention, the Trial Court set down
the case for trial. The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and
marked Exs.P1 to P22. The respondent was examined as RW.1
and he marked Exs.R1 to R8.
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court held that the petitioner had failed to prove the
income of the respondent. However, taking into account the
offer made by the respondent that he would pay a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month, the Trial Court directed the respondent
to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the
petitioner and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per annum
towards medical expenses.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is
before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the respondent is drawing more than Rs.2,50,000/- as rent
from the tenants in the property and that the petitioner has no
other source of income and is entirely dependant on the
respondent for her maintenance. He submits that the
petitioner is unable to maintain herself and that she is now 67
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
years old and her monthly medical expenses itself exceed a
sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, the order passed
by the Trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per
month be enhanced.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that except the rental income from the building at
Gokulam, the respondent does not have any other source of
income and whatever rent that is earned is used to pay up
monthly installments to the banks, where the father of the
respondent had raised a loan to construct a building. He
therefore, submits that any indulgence to increase the
maintenance awarded by the Trial Court would be against the
interest of the respondent.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel
for the respondent.
10. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court discloses that the Trial Court did not insist the parties to
file an affidavit setting out the list of assets and liabilities of the
parties, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a somewhat
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
similar situation between a husband and wife in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha and another [(2021) 2 SCC 324].
11. The petitioner is mother and the respondent is son
and therefore, the respondent owes a duty to maintain the
petitioner till her life time. The respondent claimed that he was
receiving rent from the tenants in the property constructed at
Gokulam in Mysuru. He contended that some tenants
particularly, Vijaya Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank, who were
regularly paying rent have stopped paying rent, as the
petitioner had represented to them that they should not pay
rent to the respondent in view of the dispute raised by the
petitioner regarding the gift deed executed by her in favour of
her husband and consequent gift deed executed by him in
favour of respondent. He also contended that whatever money
that was generated from the premises was used to service the
loan that his father had raised and therefore, the respondent is
not in possession of any other income to pay higher
maintenance to the petitioner. In addition, he contended that
the petitioner had initiated the proceedings in
C.Misc.No.434/2006 against her husband and that the Court
had awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month and also a
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards litigation expenses. He
therefore, contends that the petitioner was sufficiently
maintained during the life time of his father and now he is
taking care of needs and necessities of the petitioner.
12. Having regard to the fact that the respondent had
himself offered before the Trial Court to pay a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance and also a sum of
Rs.50,000/- per annum towards her medical expenses, this
Court is of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate to
enhance the maintenance to offset the rate of inflation. Thus,
the maintenance deserves to be enhanced to a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month. In addition to the maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month, the respondent shall continue to pay a
sum of Rs.50,000/- per annum towards medical expenses of
the petitioner and also avail a health insurance for the
petitioner for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- every year till her
lifetime. This would definitely take care of the needs and
necessities of the petitioner, as it is stated at the bar that the
petitioner has been provided with a separate residence by her
father.
NC: 2023:KHC:42580
13. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in
part. The maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month awarded by
the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru in
C.Misc.No.719/2019 is enhanced to a sum of Rs.20,000/-
payable by the respondent every month from the date of filing
of C.Misc.No.719/2019. He shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-
per annum towards medical expenses of the petitioner and also
avail a health insurance for the petitioner with a coverage of
Rs.5,00,000/-, till her life time. Any amount already paid
towards monthly maintenance and medical expenses shall be
deducted.
14. In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if
any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
