Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sujatha Shanthakumar vs Sri Ananthashayanam Thiru Murthy on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30982
RPFC No. 150 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 150 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUJATHA SHANTHAKUMAR,
W/O SRI. ANANTHASHAYANAM THIRU MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A DOOR NO.356, 2ND MAIN ROAD
2ND STAGE, GOKULAM
MYSURU-570 002
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. ANANTHASHAYANAM THIRU MURTHY,
S/O SRI. THIRU ANANTHASHAYANAM
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A DOOR NO.43/353, VADAKKANTHARA ROAD
PALAKKAD DISTRICT
KERALA-678 012
Digitally
signed by
MEGHA PRESENLTY WORKING AT
MOHAN ZF ASIA PACIFIC PVT. LTD.,
11 TUAS DRIVE I,
Location:
HIGH COURT SINGAPORE-638 678
OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS
ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 27.04.2023 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.639/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30982
RPFC No. 150 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by the
order passed in Crl.Misc.No.639/2022 dated 27.04.2023 by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the Family
Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/-
per month from the date of petition till her life time. The
husband was directed to pay the future maintenance as and
when it becomes due to the wife. The litigation expenses fixed
at Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the wife by the husband. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner/wife is before this Court
seeking enhancement of the maintenance.
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the
sake of convenience.
3. In view of the disputes between the parties right from
the year 2008, the parties are staying separately. In the year
2009, the wife had filed M.C.No.271/2009 seeking restitution of
conjugal rights and the same came to be allowed on
30.03.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the husband had preferred
NC: 2024:KHC:30982
MFA.No.6048/2013 before this Court and this Court had
permitted the husband to move an appropriate application
seeking divorce. Thereafter, he had filed M.C.No.679/2021
seeking divorce. The trial Court by judgment dated 20.01.2022
had granted divorce and the wife had carried the matter before
this Court by filing MFA.No.2179/2022. This Court had granted
stay and the matter is pending consideration before this Court.
There after M.C.No.679/2021 filed for divorce is allowed. The
wife had filed this petition i.e., Crl.Misc.No.639/2022 seeking
maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It is
the case of the wife that the husband is working in Singapore
and drawing handsome salary. In spite of that, he failed to
maintain the wife and without any reasonable cause, he had
deserted her. According to the wife, the income of the husband
is an amount of Rs.7,88,133/-.
4. The husband had filed his statement of assets and
liabilities and also his objections. It is stated that after paying
taxes and taking care of the rental accommodation, he is left
with is an amount of Rs.44,000/-. It is his case that the wife
had never asked for maintenance right from the year 2009 till
the year 2022 it shows that with an intention to harass the
NC: 2024:KHC:30982
husband, she has come up with this application and it is a
vexatious litigation. It is his case that the wife is a graduate
and she was also working as a fashion designer and the fact
that why she is not working and why she is not able to earn
were not stated and it is his case that the wife is not entitled
for maintenance.
5. Considering all these aspects and also the fact that
without there being an order from the Court, the husband has
been paying an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the wife from the
date of filing of the petition itself, the trial Court had granted
maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the
wife. Aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife
submits that when the husband is earning lakhs of rupees in
Singapore, the trial Court had granted only maintenance of an
amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife, when she had
sought for maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per
month. The trial Court had failed to consider the income of the
husband and all the expenditure that is stated by him cannot
be believed and for an amount of Rs.44,000/- nobody would
NC: 2024:KHC:30982
work in Singapore. He submits the wife's appeal before this
court is pending and pending consideration of the same, she
requires money to take care of her basic necessities and an
amount of Rs.25,000/- per month is not sufficient to maintain
herself. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from
the wife submits that she is in the fond hope that the husband
would take her back and she wants to join the husband.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband
submits that absolutely there is no scope for settlement and
the husband is not interested to take her back. It is submitted
that in view of the recession, there is a likelihood that the
husband may lose his job. Further, he is 52 years old. It is
submitted that he will not be in a position to pay more than the
maintenance amount that is granted by the trial Court. It is
submitted that the trial Court has considered all the aspects
and granted the maintenance and no grounds are made out
seeking interference with the well considered order passed by
the trial Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, both the
NC: 2024:KHC:30982
parties are educated. The wife is a fashion designer and even
after the marriage she was working. The husband is working in
Singapore. The disputes have started between the parties from
the year 2008 and the proceedings are first initiated in the year
2009. The parties are living separately from the year 2009.
Right from the year 2008 till the year 2022, the husband had
not paid any maintenance to the wife and at any point of time,
she has never sought for maintenance. It is the case of the wife
that as she was seeking restitution of conjugal rights, she has
not sought for any maintenance from the husband. When this
Court on a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner as to
why the petitioner being a qualified woman is not working, he
submits that she is not able to secure any employment.
9. Considering the strained relations between the parties
from the year 2008 and till the year 2022, no maintenance was
asked and no maintenance was granted by the Court.
Regarding the expenditure of the husband, it is the contention
of the counsel for the petitioner that those are all exaggerated
figures that are placed before the Court. This Court cannot
assume and presume things unless and until some material is
NC: 2024:KHC:30982
placed before the Court that such figures placed by the
husband are not correct.
10. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the
view that the amount of maintenance that is granted by the
trial Court is perfectly legal and this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial
Court.
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
