Karnataka High Court

Smt. G. R. Sheela vs Sri. K. B. Yuvaraj on 11 January, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                  -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:1632
                                                        WP No. 15144 of 2023




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                              BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 15144 OF 2023 (GM-FC)


                  BETWEEN:

                  1.   SMT. G. R. SHEELA
                       W/O K.B. YUVARAJ,
                       D/O M RAMANNA,
                       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                       HOUSEWIFE.

                  2.   Y AVANI Y CARNER Y
                       S/O K.B. YUVARAJ,
                       AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
                       STUDENT.

                  3.   DHYANCHAND Y CARNER
                       S/O K.B. YUVARAJ,
                       AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
                       STUDENT.
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
                       PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 BEING
Location: HIGH
COURT OF               MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR
KARNATAKA              NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER
                       SMT. G R SHEELA

                       ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
                       NERALAGUNTE VILLAGE,
                       NAYAKANAHATTI HOBLI,
                       CHALLAKERE TALUK,
                       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536.
                                                                ...PETITIONERS

                  (BY SRI. BALARAJ A. C., ADV.)
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:1632
                                          WP No. 15144 of 2023




AND:

SRI. K. B. YUVARAJ
B.A. B.ED., M.PHIL,
DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION
S/O BASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KONASAGARA VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION
AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE COLLEGE, NAVILE,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577216.
                                                    ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M., ADV.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY MONTHLY INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO THE
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 COLLECTIVELY A SUM OF RS.75,000/- PER
MONTH AS SOUGHT BY THEM IN THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED
IN CRL.MISC.NO.377 OF 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioners, wife and the two children are before

this Court seeking a direction for enhancement of monthly

maintenance as awarded by the concerned Court in

Crl.Misc.No.377/2022. The enhancement sought is

Rs.25,000/- each, totally Rs.75,000/- per month.

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.A.C.Balaraj

appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel

Sri.Siddappa appearing for the respondent.

3. The first petitioner is the wife and the

respondent is her husband, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are

the children born from the wedlock of the first petitioner

and the respondent. They two get married on 23.04.2006

and the relationship between the two after birth of the two

children appears to have floundered. On floundering of the

relationship, the first petitioner files Crl.Misc.No.377/2022

invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from

the hands of the respondent/husband for herself and their

children, who were staying with the mother, the first

petitioner. The concerned Court by the order dated

03.12.2022, grants an ex parte interim maintenance at

Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and the children

put together and directs educational expenses of the

children to be taken care of by the respondent/husband.

The petitioner/wife and the children have preferred the

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

subject petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance,

as the amount so awarded is so meager that no care can

be taken of the children or herself. Learned counsel for the

petitioners would reiterate the grounds urged in the

petition seeking to contend that the amount of Rs.5,000/-

as granted by the concerned Court towards maintenance

of the wife and the two children is so meager, as no life

can be led worth the name in the said amount of

maintenance and the children have grown up and are aged

12 years and 14 years respectively. Therefore, he would

submit that this Court should enhance the maintenance as

is sought for by them.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

for respondent/husband would submit that educational

expenses of the children are taken care of by the husband

and the wife would not need any amount more than

Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the order so passed by the

concerned Court does not warrant interference.

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the husband has admitted in the statement of objections

as to the amount of earning that he has and therefore the

maintenance should be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- to what is

sought for.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

7. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute and

the relationship between the protagonist to the petition is

also not in dispute. The issue relates to the grant of

maintenance. The wife invokes Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and

seeks maintenance from the hands of the husband for

herself and the two children born from the wedlock. The

Court considers the entire spectrum of the issue between

the petitioners and the father, records all the submissions

but grants a meager sum of Rs.5,000/-. It is not a case

where husband has no earning to maintain the wife and

the children to a comfortable life. The statement of

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

objections of the husband filed before this Court is

evidenced enough for the earning of the husband as

obtaining in paragraph 4, which reads as follows:

"4. The respondent maintained the welfare of the parents and joint family members and education expenses of his uncle children's. The respondent taking gross salary of Rs.1,40,204/- after deduction Rs.83,589/- and after deduction of personal loan Rs.22,743/- and remaining amount Rs.60,846/-.The trail Court considered the same and award the interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1. Further direction to respondent to look after the educational expenses of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is correct."

8. The gross salary of the husband is said to be

Rs.1,40,204/- and after statutory deductions, comes to

Rs.83,589/-- The husband has projected certain personal

loan to be paid at Rs.22,000/-, which does not merit any

acceptance. Therefore, Rs.83,589/- can be taken as the

income of the husband. It is averred in the said paragraph

that he has to maintain his uncle's children as he is in a

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

joint family. The contention on the strength of the said

paragraph is noted only to be rejected. As long as the first

petitioner and respondent are couple, legally wedded, it is

the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and children,

not maintain his uncle's children in priority to children of

his own. Therefore, in the light of the income of the

husband at Rs.83,589/-, the petition deserves acceptance

for enhancement of maintenance, as the Hon'ble Apex

Court in plethora of judgments rendered as the

enhancement of maintenance looking at the cost of living

ensuing wife and children from time to time. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI VS.

SHAHID KHAN1 has held as follows:

"14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs 17,654. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs 2000. In

(2015) 5 SCC 705)

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs 2000 per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

15. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC p. 12, para 8) "8. ... The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316:(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], it has been ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6) "6. ... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 :

   1978     SCC     (Cri)       508]          falls   within       the
   constitutional         sweep          of      Article       15(3)

reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] ."

17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52:AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus:(SCC OnLine Del para 7)

7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:1632

exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."

9. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court and the income of the husband as

projected in the statement of objections itself, I deem it

appropriate to enhance the interim maintenance granted

by the concerned Court to Rs.30,000/- as against

Rs.5,000/- that is granted, which would however be

subject to further orders before the concerned Court in

Crl.Misc.No.377/2022. This is apart from the fact that the

husband will bear all educational expenses of the children.