Karnataka High Court
Smt. Meenakshi vs Sri. Senthurpathi on 9 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
RPFC No. 189 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 189 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MEENAKSHI
W/O. SENTHURPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. VAISHNAVI .S,
D/O. SENTHURPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT. MEENAKSHI
BOTH ARE R/AT
NO. 32, JAYADEVANAGARA,
2ND CROSS, METAGANAHALLI,
K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 022.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMYA D SRI. SENTHURPATHI
Location: HIGH COURT S/O. A. PONNAM BALAM,
OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 30, 3RD CROSS,
BOGADI, 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU-570 024.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED: 09.08.2017
PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.82/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.PC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
RPFC No. 189 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The revision petition is filed by the wife and child
seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. The Family Court
has not granted maintenance amount by rejecting the
petition of petitioner No.1 (wife) and awarded
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner
No.2/daughter. Therefore, for grant of maintenance to
petitioner No.1/wife and for enhancement of maintenance
awarded to petitioner No.2/daughter, the present revision
petition is filed.
2. It is stated that petitioner No.1 is the wife of
respondent and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of
respondent and petitioner No.1. The relationship is not
disputed. The petitioners were constrained to leave the
companionship of respondent and started to reside
separately. Therefore, petitioners filed the petition under
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month from the respondent/husband and
Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to
the petitioner No.2/daughter and rejected the petition filed
by the petitioner No.1/wife on the ground that
respondent/husband has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to
the petitioner No.1/wife and she is earning income out of
that amount, which is admitted by the petitioner No.1/wife
also that respondent/husband has given gold ornaments to
the petitioner No.1/wife. Therefore, instant revision
petition is filed.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the records.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners
submitted that rejection of maintenance amount to
petitioner No.1/wife is not correct, since
respondent/husband has suspected the fidelity of the
petitioner No.1/wife. Further it is submitted that the
petitioners were constrained to leave the house of the
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
respondent/husband and now they are residing in Mysuru
City. Further, it is submitted that meager amount of
Rs.5,000/- granted to the petitioner No.2/daughter is not
sufficient, hence prays for enhancement of maintenance
amount to the petitioner No.2/daughter and grant of
maintenance to the petitioner No.1/wife. Further it is
submitted that the respondent/husband is the owner of
house, owns two vacant sites at Mysuru and he keeps
travelling to Canada often as stated in the affidavit. As
such, the respondent/husband is having financial viability
and therefore, petitioner No.1/wife prays to grant
maintenance amount.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/husband submitted that petitioner No.1/wife is
not entitled to maintenance, since she has left the house
voluntarily and the respondent/husband has paid a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner No.1/wife and she is earning
interest from that amount and also the petitioner No.1 has
admitted in her cross examination that she has received
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
gold ornaments weighing 350 grams and also Kinetic
Honda and other gold ornaments. When gold ornaments
and vehicle is given to the petitioner No.1/wife, she is not
entitled for any maintenance. Therefore, learned counsel
for the respondent/husband prays for dismissing the
petition.
6. The relationship between the parties as
discussed above, is not disputed. The Family Court has
rejected the petition of the petitioner No.1/wife on the
ground that respondent/husband has given gold
ornaments worth 350 gms, other gold ornaments and also
Kinetic Honda, which are admitted by petitioner No.1/wife.
Therefore, denied granting maintenance amount to
petitioner No.1/wife. The Family Court has granted
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner
No.2/daughter from the date of petition till she gets
married.
7. The respondent/husband and petitioner
No.1/wife both have filed their statement of assets and
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
liabilities in the form of affidavit. Firstly, upon considering
the affidavit filed in the form statement of assets and
liabilities of respondent/husband, the respondent/husband
is having own house and two vacant sites measuring 6
mtrs x 9 mtrs at Bhogadi, Mysuru city. It is stated in the
affidavit that the said property is a self acquired property
of the respondent/husband, which shows financial viability
of the respondent/husband. Furthermore, the
respondent/husband has given details in the affidavit to
the effect that he was residing in abroad outside India for
temporarily in Canada. Now, the respondent/husband
may be residing in India at Mysuru city, but he was
travelling to Canada often as stated in the affidavit. The
affidavit of the respondent/husband also shows that
mother of respondent is aged 92 years and she is residing
alone along with respondent/husband. Therefore,
respondent/husband is having responsibility of maintaining
his mother and there are no other dependents of the
respondent/husband. Therefore, upon considering the
affidavit of statement of assets and liabilities of the
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
respondent/husband, it proves that respondent/husband is
having sufficient income.
8. Insofar as the affidavit of assets and liabilities
filed by the petitioner No.1/wife is concerned, it says
respondent's qualification is B.E. in Electronics, he is doing
real estate, electrical items repairs and earning
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.55,000/- per month. Regarding
immovable property, what is deposed by the
respondent/husband is stated in the affidavit filed by the
petitioner No.1/wife. The petitioner No.1/wife has filed the
affidavit relating to child to the effect regarding education
expenses, school fees, etc., and stated that the child
requires expenditure of Rs.6,000/- per month. Further it
is to be considered that both parties are residing in Mysuru
City and when compared to other towns, the living and
personal expenses in Mysuru City are more.
9. The respondent/husband has not countered the
said affidavit saying that petitioner No.1/wife is having
immovable properties. Just because the
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
respondent/husband has given a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to
the petitioner No.1/wife and has given gold to the quantity
of 350 gms, Kinetic Honda, that cannot be the reason to
deny the grant of maintenance to the petitioner No.1/wife.
The petitioner No.1/wife is under the obligation to
maintain and nurture the petitioner No.2/daughter. Due
to separation of respondent/husband and petitioner
No.1/wife, the petitioner No.2/daughter is constrained to
live with her mother. It is the responsibility of the
petitioner No.1/wife to perform her marriage. Even
though the learned counsel for the respondent/husband
submitted that respondent/husband is ready to take the
responsibility of performing marriage of the daughter i.e.,
his obligation to perform his daughter's marriage, that
cannot be the reason to deny maintenance to the
petitioner No.1/wife and petitioner No.2/daughter.
10. Further, in the affidavit filed by petitioner
No.1/wife it is deposed that petitioner No.1/wife is having
a liability of loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for herself and for her
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
daughter's expenses. Therefore, upon considering the
affidavits produced by respondent/husband and petitioner
No.1/wife, it is proved that the respondent/husband is
having sufficient income and is having financial viability to
maintain his wife and daughter and at the same time, the
petitioner No.1/wife being mother of the petitioner
No.2/daughter has more responsibility of the daughter.
Therefore, the reasoning given by the Family Court that
respondent/husband has given Rs.3,00,000/- to the
petitioner No.1/wife and has given gold to the quantity of
350 gms and two wheeler, as discussed above to the
petitioner No.1/wife, cannot be the reason to deny the
maintenance amount to the petitioner No.1/wife.
11. Therefore, upon considering both the aspects of
respondent's legal obligation and first petitioner's
obligation, it is hereby directed to respondent/husband to
pay the maintenance amount to petitioner No.1/wife and
enhanced amount to petitioner No.2/daughter.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Family Court in
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
rejecting the petition for maintenance filed by the
petitioner No.1/wife is concerned, is set aside and
accordingly, maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month
is granted to the petitioner No.1/wife and petitioner
No.2/daughter is awarded enhanced maintenance of
Rs.2,000/- per month in addition to what has been
awarded by the Family Court till her marriage.
12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition filed by the
petitioners is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 09.08.2017 passed
by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mysuru, in C.Misc.No.82/2014, is set
aside insofar as rejecting petition filed
by the petitioner No.1/wife and
modified to the extent of awarding
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1375
to petitioner No.1/wife from the date
of petition.
(iii) The petitioner No.2/daughter is
awarded enhanced maintenance of
Rs.2,000/- per month from the date
of petition till her marriage in addition
to what has been awarded by the
Family Court.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
