Karnataka High Court
Sri. Balaji Rao .T.R vs Kumari. Jhanavi on 1 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
RPFC No. 91 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 91 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. BALAJI RAO T.R.,
S/O. SRI. T. RANOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.821, AGP LAYOUT,
NEAR SAPTAGIRI ENG. COLLEGE,
HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJULA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
KUMARI. JHANAVI,
Digitally D/O. BALAJI RAO,
signed by AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
MEGHA REP. BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN,
MOHAN
SMT. NETHRAVATHI,
Location:
HIGH COURT R/AT.NO.441/1, 21ST MAIN,
OF 4TH BLOCK,
KARNATAKA NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 096.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH V., ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.11.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.735/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
RPFC No. 91 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present RPFC is filed aggrieved by the orders passed
in Crl.Misc.No.735/2018 dated 23.11.2022 by the VI Addl.
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, under Section 127 of
the CrPC., by the minor petitioner through her mother/natural
guardian against the respondent/father seeking enhancement
of monthly maintenance from an amount of Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.25,000/-.
2. The facts of the case are that the marriage was
solemnized on 28.08.2005 at Chitradurga and out of their
wedlock they are blessed with a daughter. In view of the
differences, earlier Crl.Misc.No.226/2011 was filed seeking
monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.30,000/- and initially
maintenance of an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month was
granted to the mother. During the pendency of
Crl.Misc.No.226/2011, the husband had filed
M.C.No.2758/2014 seeking divorce. It was referred to
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
Bangalore Mediation Centre for settlement and it was settled.
As per the settlement, the husband had paid permanent
alimony of an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the wife and it was
agreed that the mother can prosecute Crl.Misc.No.226/2011
regarding maintenance of the minor child and the marriage was
dissolved as per the orders dated 09.03.2015 and the husband
had paid the permanent alimony. Earlier, by order dated
11.07.2017, the Trial Court had granted maintenance of an
amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor child in
Crl.Misc.No.226/2011. It is stated that the mother is
unemployed, as she has no source of income and monthly
maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- is not sufficient, she
is facing difficulties to raise the child and also to meet the
necessary expenses of the child. The husband is working in
Accenture and drawing a salary of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
per month and sought for enhancement of maintenance from
an amount of Rs.10,000/- to an amount of Rs.25,000/-.
3. It is the case of the petitioner/father that after the
divorce he had remarried another woman, who had a son out of
her first marriage and out of the said marriage with the second
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
wife, the petitioner is having a daughter. He lost his job during
Covid period and he has no sufficient source of income. This
petition is filed only to harass him. It is his case that the wife
also gets income from the rent as she owns number of houses
and as she is an advocate she is harassing the husband. The
Trial Court while granting the maintenance had considered the
evidence placed by both the parties, particularly the documents
filed on behalf of the father, i.e., the school fees paid by him to
his daughter out of the second marriage and other medical
records. Court also considered the fact that he is irregular in
paying monthly maintenance to the daughter and also the fact
that he was drawing a salary of an amount of Rs.72,000/- per
month while working in Accenture. The statement of assets and
liabilities filed by the husband dated 01.10.2021 reveals that he
was working as team leader, but he has not mentioned
regarding his monthly salary. It shows that he has been paying
an amount Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of
his daughter. The Trial Court also considered the fact that he is
living in a house which belongs to his parents. Considering all
these aspects, the Trial Court had felt that the maintenance can
be enhanced from an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
from the date of the petition till the daughter gets married and
it would meet the ends of justice. Aggrieved thereby the
petitioner/husband is before this Court.
4. This matter came up before this Court on several
occasions. Interim order was granted on 26.10.2023 by
directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-
or else the default order will be passed. It is the case of the
respondent that there are arrears of maintenance and except
Rs.1,35,000/- that is ordered by the Court no other amounts
are paid. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father
submits that petitioner/husband is not having any employment,
in fact he is depending upon his second wife. He submits that
he is a MCA graduate but in the Covid, he lost his job. Now, the
Trial Court, without any basis had enhanced the maintenance
from an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. It is his case
that he is able to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-, but
Rs.15,000/- would be very difficult for him. It is submitted that
the respondent's mother being an advocate comes up with one
application or the other and harassing the petitioner. It is
stated that he had never seen the daughter from the last ten
years and even for the Mediation also the mother had not
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
brought the child. It is submitted that paying maintenance of
an amount of Rs.15,000/- is beyond the capacity of the
husband and the RPFC has to be allowed by reducing the
amount to Rs.10,000/-.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further
submits that when the permanent alimony was granted, the
Trial Court had permitted the mother to pursue the matter for
maintenance as far as the minor is concerned. It is submitted
that there are arrears and he was never regular in paying the
maintenance amount and submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner about the respondent not allowing the father to
meet the child, it is submitted that he had never made any
efforts to see the daughter and even in the cross examination
in the divorce petition also he has stated that he has not filed
any G and WC and there is no intention to file G and WC. It is
submitted that the mother is not having sufficient income to
maintain the child and it is the responsibility of the father to
take care of the child which he failed to discharge. It is further
submitted that now, the girl had completed her SSLC and the
requirement for her education has also increased and when the
wife had sought for Rs.25,000/-, the Trial Court had only
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-. In that also being a father
of the child, he had failed to take the responsibility.
6. In response to that, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the whereabouts of the mother and the
child are not known as there is no specific address for them, as
such he could never visit the child.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material placed on record. Admitted facts of this
case are both the mother and the father have obtained a
mutual consent divorce and in the said proceedings permanent
alimony of an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was paid to the
mother. Thereafter, the father got remarried and from the said
marriage, he is blessed with a daughter. It is his case that he
has to take care of the responsibilities of the daughter and the
aged parents and he is a MCA graduate, earlier he used to work
and he lost his job and from the last two years he is not
working, but at the same time, he submits that he can pay an
amount of Rs.10,000/-, but he cannot pay an amount of
Rs.15,000/- to the daughter. It is also an undisputed fact that
the father had never filed the G & WC petition or he has sought
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
any order of visitation to see the daughter. He had filed some
evidence before the Court stating that he had spent some
amounts towards the education of his daughter out of the
second marriage. Being a father he has a responsibility to take
care of the daughter. Admittedly, he got remarried and he has
not made any efforts to seek the custody or he has taken care
of the maintenance of the child. The order passed by the Court
is also not complied with and he has been very irregular in
paying the maintenance. As per the evidence on record, she is
getting a meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and in that
it is not possible for her to take care of the daughter. The
husband says that he is not earning anything at one breath and
he says that he can pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- the other.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, for the needs
of the daughter, even maintenance of an amount of
Rs.15,000/- granted by the Trial Court is also not sufficient. As
no appeal is preferred by the mother this Court is not going
into that aspect. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere
with the orders passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the following,
NC: 2024:KHC:30665
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the RPFC filed by the petitioner/
husband is dismissed.
ii. All I.As. in the RPFC, shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
