Karnataka High Court
Sri. Niranjan V vs Kum.N.Prathiksha on 4 July, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
RPFC No. 143 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
RPFC NO. 143 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI NIRANJAN V.,
S/O LATE D.T. VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11 3RD CROSS,
RMV 2ND STAGE, DEVAPPA GARDEN,
NAGASHETTIHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 094.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
KUM. N.PRATHIKSHA,
D/O NIRANJAN,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1 9TH CROSS,
1ST BLOCK NAGARBHAVI,
SUMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 078.
REP. BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN
Digitally signed by (GRANDFATHER) SRI VEERASIDDAIAH,
GEETHAKUMARI S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, 9TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
PARLATTAYA S NAGARBHAVI, SUMMANAHALLI,
Location: High BANGALORE-560 078.
Court of Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
13.03.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.120/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
C/C I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.PC. FOR
MAINTENANCE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
RPFC No. 143 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Challenging judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 passed
I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, Crl.Misc.no.120/2016,
this petition is filed.
2. Sri Siddharth Muchandi, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted, petitioner is father of respondent. It was
submitted, respondent had filed application claiming monthly
maintenance of Rs.50,000/- under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It
was submitted from marriage of petitioner with Smt.Veena,
respondent was born. However, thereafter, petitioner had filed
M.C.no.175/2007 for divorce. During pendency, Smt.Veena
died due to illness on 11.05.2007, rendering it infructuous.
Thereafter, petitioner had filed G & WC no.115/2007 for
custody of respondent. Same was dismissed. In appeal before
this Court, petitioner consented for custody of respondent with
his mother-in-law. Thereafter, Crl.Misc.no.120/2016 was filed.
3. It was submitted, though, petitioner had entered
appearance, and contested same by stating that he had re-
married and begot two children, who were also required to be
maintained with meager income, without justification Family
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
Court, ordered him to pay exorbitant amount towards
maintenance.
4. It was submitted, petitioner had never failed or
neglected to maintain respondent and filing of application under
G & WC Act, would stand testimony of same. He had also
stated that he would meet educational expenses of respondent,
against receipts/bills. Further, respondent had already filed suit
for partition of joint family properties and same was pending. It
was submitted, only documents produced by respondent before
Family Court were birth certificate, order in G & WC case, order
of this Court in appeal, study certificate and achievement
records as Exs.P.1 to P5. None of said documents were relevant
for determination of quantum of maintenance. Hence, order of
Family Court suffered from material irregularity if not, illegality
in directing payment of monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/-.
Hence, sought interference.
5. On other hand, Sri Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned
counsel for respondent sought to oppose petition. It was
submitted, respondent is minor daughter of petitioner. Hence,
there was no dispute about dependency.
6. In petition, it was asserted that petitioner was
working as a software engineer and earning more than
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
Rs.1,50,000/-per month. Apart from same, he held immovable
properties earning rental income of Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. He was
also stated to be living in own house with three floors. Same
would indicate that petitioner was having rich life style, which
would justify claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/-.
7. It was submitted, during cross-examination,
petitioner admitted that he was earning Rs.53,000/- per month
as salary. Insofar as immovable properties, he stated that
property in Peenya was standing in name of his mother. He
also stated that house was also standing in name of his mother.
To suggestions about income earned from said properties,
petitioner had given evasive answers. Taking note of same,
Family Court had held his average monthly income to be
around Rs.1,00,000/- by drawing adverse inference for giving
evasive answers. Even if, determination of monthly income by
Family Court is to be considered as family income for
considering status, order for payment of monthly maintenance
at Rs.15,000/- would not call for interference. On above
grounds sought for dismissal of petition.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
order.
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
9. From above, point that would arise for consideration
is:
"Whether impugned order calls for interference?"
10. This revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of
Family Courts Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyla
Mutyalamma Alia Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and
Anr. reported in (2011)12 SCC 189, has held there can be no
re-evaluation of evidence and revisional Court can interfere
only in case impugned order suffers from material irregularity
or illegality or from error of jurisdiction. Hence, scope for
interference cannot be equated to as in appeal.
11. Admittedly, there is no dispute about dependency
and entitlement for maintenance. Challenge is only on
quantum. Family Court has recorded that petitioner admitted
his monthly salary to be Rs.53,000/-. That apart, there is
admission about owning of property in Peenya, Bengaluru,
(which is an industrial area) and a house with three floors.
Though, he has denied having knowledge about deriving
income from said properties by stating that they belonged to
his mother, learned Family Court Judge, referred to his
admission that petitioner's father died and his only sister was
NC: 2024:KHC:25263
already married. He further admitted that his mother was
unable to move. Since, there was no acceptable explanation for
lack of information, adverse inference was drawn. As it would
be petitioner rather than respondent, who would have
information about income from properties, drawing of adverse
inference would be justified.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, has held determination of
quantum of maintenance would involve some reasonable guess
work. Based on admitted monthly income and holding of
immovable properties, Family Court estimated total monthly
income at Rs.1,50,000/-. Such being case, direction to pay
monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/-, i.e. only 10% of monthly
income would be fully justified and cannot be stated to be
suffering from material irregularity or illegality or to be
suffering from error of jurisdiction. Hence, point for
consideration is answered in negative.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
