Karnataka High Court
Anil Kumar K M vs Shruthi R on 20 February, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7312
RPFC No. 72 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 72 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
ANIL KUMAR.K.M,
S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SHIVAGANGA, 3RD A CROSS,
1ST MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA,
TUMKURU - 562 102.
THIS IS PRESENT ADDRESS
ANIL KUMAR.K.M,
S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEAR S
C/O SHYAMALA, 4TH MAIN,
H V R LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 079
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PRAMOD R, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SHRUTHI. R
W/O ANIL KUMAR K M
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2. MANASVI K M
D/O ANIL KUMAR K M
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7312
RPFC No. 72 of 2019
BOTH ARE R/O NEAR CIT GIRLS
HOSTEL, BATAWADI,
TUMKURU - 562 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R2 IS MINOR REP BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19[4] OF FAMILY COURT
ACT.1955 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.03.2019 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.63/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR. P.C.
FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband
questioning grant of maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/-
p.m., to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.8,000/- to
respondent No.2-daughter.
2. Heard the arguments from both sides and
perused the records.
NC: 2024:KHC:7312
3. The relationship between the petitioner and
respondents are not in dispute. The petitioner is the
husband of respondent No.1-wife and father of respondent
No.2-daughter. Considering the fact that the petitioner is
an Assistant Executive Engineer in KPTCL, the Family
Court has granted maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per
month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.8,000/- per month
to respondent No.2- daughter.
4. On certain allegations of cruelty and
ill- treatment against the petitioner-husband, respondent
No.1-wife was constrained to live separately from the
petitioner-husband along with respondent No.2-minor
daughter. Ex.P.3 is the salary certificate, which proves
that as on the year 2016, the petitioner was earning salary
of Rs.74,000/- per month.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband
submitted that respondent No.1-wife is working as a clerk
NC: 2024:KHC:7312
in the bank and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
Therefore, she is capable of earning, hence, she is not
entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, prays to allow
the petition insofar as respondent No.1-wife is concerned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband
does not wish to contest the maintenance granted to
petitioner No.2-minor daughter.
7. The respondents who are wife and minor
daughter are living separately from the petitioner-husband
and respondents are living independently, but not in the
house of her parents. Therefore, respondent No.1-wife is
under obligation to nurture respondent No.2-daughter by
providing education, food and medicine etc., and also for
maintaining herself has compelled her to work.
Accordingly, she may be working in the bank as a clerk
and may be receiving salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and
NC: 2024:KHC:7312
the said job working by respondent No.1-wife is temporary
in nature.
8. As discussed above, respondent No.1-wife was
constrained to do job in the bank and may be earning
Rs.12,000/- p.m., because this is inevitable for her to live
in the society with dignity and also to fulfill her
responsibility towards her minor daughter. Therefore,
these compelling circumstances making wife to earn as
above stated cannot be said that she is capable to earn
herself. To satisfy hungry of stomach, the wife and
daughter cannot wait till decree is passed by the Court or
the daughter cannot wait for medicine and education till
decree is passed for maintenance. Therefore, when wife is
constrained to do some work for earning basic livelihood
amenities, as in the present case the wife is working on
temporary basis in the bank cannot be said that the wife is
an earning person to maintain herself and also it is not the
ground to shirk the responsibility on the part of the
NC: 2024:KHC:7312
petitioner-husband to maintain wife and child. Admittedly,
the petitioner-husband is an Assistant Executive Engineer
working in KPTCL and as per Ex.P.3- salary certificate, it is
proved that for the year 2016 in a month, the petitioner
was earning salary of Rs.74,000/- per month and now the
petitioner may be drawing salary nearly Rs.1,10,000/- per
month.
9. Therefore, the Family Court is correct in holding
that the petitioner-husband is a financially viable person.
Even though, the Family Court has observed that after
deduction, his take home salary is Rs.50,000/- per month.
The only amount can be deducted while considering the
quantum of maintenance is income tax and professional
tax. Whatever may be the deductions like interest/loan
raised on car, or loan raised for construction of house or
LIC or any other purposes that cannot be deducted
towards making assessment of quantum of maintenance,
NC: 2024:KHC:7312
because these loans are ultimately beneficial to the
husband.
10. Therefore, the Family Court is correct in holding
that the petitioner-husband is a financially viable person.
Hence, there are no good grounds available to reduce the
quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner-husband is
liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with cost of
Rs.25,000/- payable to the respondents.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
