Karnataka High Court
Sri Madhu vs Smt Janaki @ Parvathi on 25 July, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
RPFC No. 70 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 70 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI MADHU,
S/O LATE MADANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 818, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, NAGARAHOLE NAGAR,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD, MAHADESWARA NAGARA,
HEROHALLY CROSS, BENGALURU 560 091.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1. SMT. JANAKI @ PARVATHI,
W/O MADHU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
2.
KUMARI MADHURI,
D/O MADHU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 231,
PARLATTAYA S C/O. SUNDANDA DEVI, MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
Location: High CHOWDESWARI LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,
Court of Karnataka BENGALURU 560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH)]
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 PASSED
IN CRL.MIS.NO.110/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
RPFC No. 70 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 12.11.2019 passed by Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.no.110/2013 filed under
Section 125 for Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' for
short), this petition is filed.
2. Sri Sridhara K., learned counsel for petitioner
submitted, marriage of petitioner and respondent no.1 was
solemnized on 09.05.1993 and from wedlock they begot Chetan
on 20.10.1994 and Madhuri (respondent no.2) on 16.02.1998.
It was submitted Chetan was in custody of petitioner. It was
submitted, from date of marriage, respondent no.1 was
quarrelsome with petitioner and his mother without any reason.
She was in habit of visiting her parents house frequently,
without informing petitioner. Though petitioner always took
care and maintained family, respondent no.1 failed to be dutiful
wife and mother for children. She deserted petitioner without
justification in year 2011 and filed false complaint against him.
Therefore, respondent no.1 was disentitled for maintenance.
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
3. It was submitted despite making assertions about
petitioner's income, she failed to produce any material. Ex-R2
income certificate issued by Revenue Department would
indicate income of Rs.11,000/- per annum. Even taking his
income as Rs.450/- per day, quantum of maintenance passed
by Family Court was without proper appreciation.
4. It was submitted fact that parents of respondent
no.1 were well settled was suppressed. Further, this Court on
08.09.2021, directed both parties to file affidavit of their assets
and liabilities. In affidavit filed, petitioner had disclosed about
income of respondent no.1 from various sources. Hence,
petition was liable to be rejected.
5. It was further submitted, respondent no.2 had
attained age of majority, completed M.B.B.S. Course, in year
2020 and getting remuneration and provisions of Section 125
of Cr.P.C. would not permit order for maintenance to daughter
who had attained age of majority. Under these facts impugned
order was unsustainable and sought interference.
6. On other hand, Sri R.Nagaraja, learned counsel for
respondents sought to support impugned order. It was
submitted there was no dispute about marriage and birth of
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
children. It was submitted, though respondent no.1 was taking
care of household, mother-in-law used to quarrel and harass
her for dowry. Even during her pregnancy, she was harassed,
forcing her to stay with parents, though she intended to reside
in marital home. It was submitted petitioner was having bad
vices including illegal affairs and had also threatened her. All
settlements were rendered unsuccessful due to petitioner's
attitude. In fact, petitioner had filed M.C.no.1578/2012 for
divorce on ground of desertion and during it's pendency,
application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage
Act was filed and same was allowed as per Ex.P.19, thereafter
said petition was dismissed for non-payment of interim
maintenance. Said fact would establish failure and neglect by
petitioner in maintaining respondents, despite having sufficient
income.
7. Though, petitioner sought to rely on Exs.R1 and R2
- caste and income certificates to contend that family income of
respondent no.2 was certified as Rs.11,000/- p.a., respondents
had specifically disputed said fact. Respondent no.1 had
specifically stated about petitioner earning Rs.2,00,000/- per
month from contract work and also owned agricultural land. In
corroboration, she had produced Ex.P15 - invitation card of
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
house warming ceremony of three floor building, which
established high living standards. It was submitted petitioner
admitted in cross-examination that his sister was an advocate,
based on her instructions petitioner had suppressed his income
and also immovable properties only to avoid maintenance.
8. It was submitted, fact that petitioner admitted not
knowing whether respondent no.2 was studying MBBS,
established neglect. He also admitted not making any attempts
to know about respondents or about paying maintenance or
educational expenses of daughter. Said facts establish neglect
and failure on his part.
9. It was submitted, while passing impugned order,
Family Court had considered entire material and after due
appreciation passed impugned order and same did not call for
interference. On said grounds sought for dismissal.
10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
order.
11. Thus, petitioner's challenge is only on quantum of
maintenance. Hence, point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether impugned order calls for interference?"
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
12. From above, there is no dispute about marriage
between petitioner and respondent no.1 and respondent no.2
born to them. In application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
respondents claimed monthly maintenance at rate of
Rs.25,000/-. In order to establish their claim for same, they
would be required to prove income of petitioner and/or
standard of life in his house. In this regard respondents have
pleaded that petitioner was working as contractor and earning
Rs.2,00,000/- per month. They also stated that he was having
agricultural lands, house property and owned a car. They have
also produced account extract as Ex.P.20 and Pan card as
Ex.P.22.
13. However, petitioner has sought to rely on Caste and
Income Certificate of respondent no.2 marked as Exs.R.1 and
R.2, wherein total annual income of family of respondent is
certified as Rs.11,000/-. But, while passing impugned order,
Family Court has taken note of fact that in M.C.no1578/2012
filed by petitioner, an application was filed under Section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act and by order dated 14.12.2012, petitioner
was directed to pay amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. It also
took note of fact that in proceedings pending before it,
petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance at
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
Rs.2,500/- for wife and Rs.1,500/- for daughter, which was
paid. On basis of above, Family Court deduced paying capacity
of petitioner. Thereafter referring to petitioner's pleading in
para no.11 of his objections statement, that he had lent
Rs.3,00,000/- to brother of respondent no.1, to conclude
financial capacity of respondent.
14. As held in Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324, for assessment of husband's income to determine
maintenance, some reasonable guess work would be
permissible. Therefore, when assessment is based on some
material on record, for awarding Rs.5,000/- to wife and
Rs.3,000/- to daughter which are bare minimum for survival,
they cannot be stated to be either contrary to material on
record or without any basis.
15. However, Family Court has ordered payment of
maintenance to respondent no.2 from date of petition till she
completes her education and begins earning independently or
gets married, which would be contrary to second proviso to
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Explanation (a) thereof. As per
Ex.P.13, her date of birth is 16.02.1998, she attained age of
majority on 15.02.2016. In Abhilasha v. Parkash, reported in
NC: 2024:KHC:29631
(2021) 13 SCC 99, it is held daughter who as attained age of
majority is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., and same can be claimed till her marriage under Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. Therefore, impugned
order to said extent would call for interference. Point for
consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
ORDER
i. Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii. Challenge insofar as direction to pay
maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month to
respondent No.1 is confirmed.
iii. Direction to pay monthly maintenance to
respondent No.2 daughter at Rs.5,000/-
till she completes her education, begins
earning or till her marriage is modified
and restricted upto to the date on which
she attains age of majority.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
PSG/GRD
