Karnataka High Court
Naveen Raj B.K vs Dr. Shruti B K on 24 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5291-DB
MFA No. 200277 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200277 OF 2024 (FC)
BETWEEN:
MR. NAVEEN RAJ B. K.
S/O KUMBAIAH,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
R/O H.NO. 311, 2ND BLOCK,
3RD STAGE, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
NEAR CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL,
BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by (BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DR. SHRUTI B. K.
D/O DR. B. KISTAPPA,
W/O NAVEEN RAJ B.K.,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
R/O PLOT NO. 496, GDA LAYOUT,
RAJAPUR BADEPUR,
PRASHANTH NAGAR - B,
OPP. INDIAN OIL OFFICERS QTRS,
RING ROAD, KALABURAGI- 585 105.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5291-DB
MFA No. 200277 of 2024
(BY SMT. HEMA L. K., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.09.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE C/C ADDL.
FAMILY COURT, KALABURAGI IN M.C.NO.345/2022, IN SO FAR
AS GRANTING PERMANENT ALIMONY OF Rs.20,00,000/- BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal is directed against that portion of the
judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi in Matrimonial
Case No.345/2022, granting permanent alimony of
Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent/wife by the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5291-DB
appellant/husband while granting a decree of divorce by
allowing the respondent's petition.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Family Court. The appellant is the respondent
and respondent is the petitioner.
3. The facts arise for consideration, which are
borne out from the pleadings, are as under:
4. The respondent is the legally wedded husband
of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on
11.07.2009 at Kosagi Kalyan Mantap, Ring Road,
Kalaburagi as per their custom. From the date of marriage
itself, the marital relationship between the petitioner and
respondent was not cordial and they both used to quarrel
with each other for silly reasons. There was no physical
relationship took place between them and according to the
petitioner, the respondent was addicted for bad vices and
he used to torture her. The respondent studied M.S., Ph.D
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5291-DB
at London, UK and running his company at Rajajinagar,
Bangalore and earning more than Rs.5,00,000/- per
month, in spite of that, he totally neglected the petitioner.
Hence, she filed divorce petition before the Family Court in
M.C.No.345/2022 and the same was allowed and the
marriage solemnized between them was dissolved by a
decree of divorce by the Family Court and permanent
alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- awarded to the petitioner.
Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel Sri Sanjeev
Kumar C Patil for appellant and learned counsel Smt.
Hema L.K., for respondent so also perused the materials
available on record.
6. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment
and the documents placed before this Court, it could be
seen that, either the petitioner or the respondent have not
challenged the decree of divorce granted by the Family
Court by dissolving their marriage. The challenge made by
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5291-DB
the respondent is only in respect of grant of permanent
alimony as stated supra. Before the Family Court it is
alleged by the petitioner that, the respondent is running
his own Media and Film Company at Bangalore and
earning a monthly income of more than Rs.5,00,000/-. In
spite of that, he failed to look after his wife. As such, she
prayed a permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the
respondent. However, the petitioner failed to substantiate
the same by producing any such documentary evidence to
that effect. However, it is also not disputed by the
appellant/respondent that the petitioner is residing at her
parental house. Further, he also failed to produce any such
documentary evidence before the Family Court to prove
that she is earning any income to meet her livelihood. We
are of the considered view that, in order to meet the day
to day affairs of the petitioner/wife, the Family Court has
rightly granted a permanent alimony of Rs.20,00,000/-.
We find no error in the said order passed by the Family
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5291-DB
Judge and the same does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT;BN
