Karnataka High Court

Dr Tulasiram vs Shilpashree on 2 August, 2024

                                                                 -1-
                                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB
                                                                          MFA No. 911 of 2020




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                                           PRESENT
                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
                                                                 AND
                                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2020 (FC)
                                 BETWEEN:

                                 DR. TULASIRAM,
                                 S/O SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY,
                                 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                                 RESIDING AT NO.244,
                                 `SHIVASHAKTHI NILAYA',
                                 1ST STAGE, 3RD CROSS,
                                 3RD MAIN, ITI LAYOUT,
                                 CHANDRA LAYOUT,
                                 BENGALURU - 560 039.
                                                                              ...APPELLANT
                                 (BY SRI. NAIK N R., ADVOCATE)

                                 AND:
                                 SMT. SHILPASHREE,
                                 W/O DR.TULASIRAM
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
                                 AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
                                 RESIDING AT NO.28,
                                 26TH BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR,
                                 SHAKTHINAGAR MAIN ROAD,
                                 NEAR B.S.N.L TOWER,
                                 MYSURU - 570 039.
                                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                                 (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

                                       THIS MFA         IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT,
                                 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.25.11.2019 PASSED IN
                                 MC NO.754/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE,
                                 FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
                                 U/S.13(1), (ia), (iii) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
                                  -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB
                                           MFA No. 911 of 2020




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
            and
            HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA


                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This is respondent's appeal against the judgment and

decree passed by the II Addl. Prl.Judge, Family Court,

Mysuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Family

Court'), in M.C.No.754/2018, dated 25.11.2019.

2. We refer the parties as per their rank before the

Family Court.

3. The facts in brief of case of both the parties before

the Family Court were that :

The respondent is the husband of the petitioner. Their

marriage was solemnised on 04.12.2016 at

Kalabyraweshwara Swamy Temple, Nadaprabhu

Kempegowda Jodi Road, BEML Layout, Rajarajeshwari

Nagara, Bengaluru, in accordance with the customs and

rituals prevailed in the Hindu community. After marriage,

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

the petitioner went to the house of respondent to lead

marital life. The respondent was residing with his parents,

younger brothers and sister. Though the sister of the

respondent is married, she is residing nearby the house of

the respondent and frequently, she used to visit the house of

the respondent. The petitioner was compelled to work at

home though she is an Engineer in graphic design and prior

to marriage, she was working in Bengaluru.

4. The respondent, his parents, brothers and sister

used to harass and ill-treat the petitioner. They compelled

the petitioner to work from morning till evening. Still, they

were not happy with her work and they used to give all sorts

of mental torture.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that after

marriage, the respondent has not performed his marital

obligations. There was no physical relationship between the

petitioner and respondent. After marriage, petitioner had

not taken her to honeymoon. During subsistence of their

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

marital life, even he had not taken her to any restaurant or

movie.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent is

suffering from mental disorders. He has been consuming

drugs for the treatment of mental disorder. During April

2018, he met with an accident and sustained fracture of right

elbow. In addition to regular drugs, he was also taking the

drugs for treatment of the said fracture.

7. Due to intolerable harassment meted to her, she

informed the same to her family members and left the

respondent and went to her parents' house. A panchayath

was also held in this regard. The respondent promised

before the panchayath that he would take care of her and

provide all the requirements, but he did not keep up his

assurance.

8. It is further case of petitioner that respondent is

working as a Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre,

Jalamangala of Ramanagara Taluk and he was earning salary

of Rs.64,250/- per month. His parents own a building

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

consisting of three floors. The respondent is liable to

maintain the petitioner and pay permanent alimony to lead

her life as per her standards. The respondent is liable to pay

permanent alimony of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner. With

these reasons, the petitioner prayed for grant of decree of

divorce and permanent alimony.

9. The respondent denied all the averments of the

petition and he contended that petitioner is not entitled for

any of the reliefs sought in the petition and prayed for

dismissal of the same.

10. During trial of the case, the petitioner examined

herself as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to

P-13. The respondent got himself examined as RW-1 and

got marked documents from Exs.R-1 and R-19.

11. After hearing both parties, the Family Court,

appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, allowed

the petition and granted the decree of divorce as prayed.

The Family Court has also awarded permanent alimony of

Rs.15 lakhs, by the impugned judgment and decree dated

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

25.11.2019. The same is challenged in the present appeal

by the respondent-husband.

12. We have heard the arguments on both side and

perused the materials on record.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

contended that though in the appeal, the appellant has

sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and a

decree for divorce, since relationship between both petitioner

and respondent has become irreversible, he does not press

the said relief of setting aside the decree of divorce and the

appellant restrict his appeal only in respect of quantum of

permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant would further

submit that, as stated in the petition, the respondent has to

look after his parents and other members of the family. He

is working as a Medical Officer in government hospital.

Considering his liabilities and other expenses, the amount of

permanent alimony awarded to the petitioner is on the

higher side and exorbitant. The petitioner is well qualified

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

and a graphic design engineer. She has been earning after

living separately from the respondent. Considering the

same, the amount of permanent alimony awarded by the

Family Court be reduced.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that respondent is working as a Medical Officer in the

government hospital. At the time of filing of the petition, his

basic salary was Rs.65,000/-. The petition was filed during

the year 2018. At present, income of respondent might be

much more than as stated in Ex.P-7. The petitioner is not

married and she is not doing any work. For her

maintenance, the amount awarded by the Family Court is not

too high, but, reasonable considering facts and

circumstances of present case. Petitioner has to lead her life

with certain standard of living as she was wife of a Gazatted

officer. Hence said finding does not call for interference. She

claimed Rs.30 lakhs as permanent alimony, however, the

Family Court awarded Rs.15 lakhs. She is aged about 30

years. Therefore, the said amount is meager and hence,

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

question of reduction in the said amount does not arise.

Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

16. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties,

following points arise for our consideration :

(i) Whether the Family Court has awarded excess amount of permanent alimony and interference in the said finding is required?

(ii) What order?

17. Our finding on the above point is in the negative

for the following reasons :

The Family Court after appreciating the materials on

record, granted the decree of divorce. Though the said

decree is challenged in the present appeal, now the appellant

has restricted the appeal only in respect of permanent

alimony. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in the

findings of the Family Court regarding grant of decree for

divorce.

18. It is not in dispute that Ex.P-7 is the pay slip of the

petitioner for the month of January 2019. According to the

said pay slip, he was drawing the gross salary of

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

Rs.93,799/-. The respondent has not produced any

materials to show that after petitioner started residing

separately, she started working and earning income. It is

also not the case of the petitioner that after grant of decree

of divorce, she got re-married. The learned trial Judge at

Paragraph-33 of the impugned judgment has considered the

age of the respondent, remaining period of his service and

his liabilities etc., and awarded the permanent alimony of

Rs.15 lakhs. In our opinion, the said amount is not

exorbitant or excessive as she has to live as per her

standard/status. She is a divorced wife of Class-1

government officer; she has to maintain the standards of

life. For the said purpose, the amount awarded by the

Family Court is reasonable. Considering the income and

liabilities of the respondent, the Family Court has awarded

proper amount of alimony. We do not find any reason to

interfere in the said finding.

19. For the above said reasons, we pass the following

order :

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31311-DB

ORDER

[i] The Appeal is dismissed.

[ii] The impugned judgment and decree passed by

the II Addl. Prl.Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in

M.C.No.754/2018, dated 25.11.2019, stands

confirmed.