Karnataka High Court
Vinod S/O Subhas Sangam vs Savitri @ Vani W/O Vinod Sangam on 7 November, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8164-DB
MFA No.201255 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201255 OF 2019 (FC-DIV)
BETWEEN:
VINOD
S/O SUBHAS SANGAM,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: KANNUR HOUSE, K.C.NAGAR,
D.C.C. BANK BACKSIDE, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA SAVITRI @ VANI
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON W/O VINOD SANGAM,
Location: HIGH AGE: 30 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: EMPLOYEE NGO,
R/O: BHAIRAVI NAGAR,
NEAR SWATANTRA COLONY,
ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.K.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8164-DB
MFA No.201255 of 2019
30.03.2019 PASSED IN M.C.NO.112/2017 BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPURA INSOFAR AS
DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO PAY RS.10,00,000/-
PERMANENT ALIMONY TO THE RESPONDENT/WIFE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
The appellant who had filed a petition under Section
13(1)(b)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking
dissolution of marriage between the parties herein, has
preferred this appeal aggrieved of the fact that while
dissolving the marriage between the parties, the Family
Court has directed the appellant/petitioner to pay
Rs.10,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent-
wife.
2. The contention of the appellant is that he is
working as driver and he has no means to pay
Rs.10,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8164-DB
Having heard the learned counsel for sometime on the
previous occasion, we had directed that the parties be
present before the Court along with daughter. Today,
both the parties are present before the Court along with
daughter. The ground on which the appellant sought for
dissolution of marriage was that the respondent suffered
from HIV infection and other communicable diseases. The
respondent who is present before the Court submits that
from the time when such allegation was made against the
respondent and medical reports were sought to be relied
upon, she has not undergone any difficulty in life. Even
today, she is hale and healthy. The respondent submits
that if she had suffered from such serious disease which is
communicable, then the child would also have suffered.
No such difficulty is faced by the child also.
3. On the other hand, it is alleged by the
respondent that the allegations were only cooked up by
the appellant and one year after the marriage was
dissolved in terms of the judgment passed by the Family
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8164-DB
Court, the appellant has remarried. The appellant has not
cared for the child and the respondent has been taking
care of the child for 11 years now. The respondent
submits that the appellant has left the respondent and the
child 11 years ago when the child was only one year old.
It is submitted that the appellant has not cared to even
find out as to how the respondent is able to manage the
upbringing of the child. It is submitted that till date, the
appellant has not paid any amount towards her health and
education and the upbringing of the child.
4. Per contra, the appellant seeks to contend that
the respondent is well educated and she was earlier
working in Nirmithi Kendra earning Rs.2,000/- per month.
Now she is working in private establishment. It is also
submitted that the respondent is staying with her father
who is running a Kirana Shop. Learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that the Family Court should have
taken into consideration the fact that the appellant is
working as a driver and he does not have capacity to pay
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8164-DB
Rs.10,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent.
Moreover, the appellant is also remarried and he has a
family to take care of.
5. We have heard learned counsels on both sides
and we interacted with the parties who are present before
the Court. Having personally interacted with the parties
and having found that the appellant has not taken care of
the child let alone the respondent for the past 11 years
and no efforts have been made by the appellant atleast to
lend a supporting hand to the respondent for taking care
of the child, we do not have any sympathy towards the
appellant. The fact that the appellant has remarried after
the judgment was passed by the Family Court goes to
show the intention of the appellant.
6. Nevertheless, the respondent has not filed any
cross-objection to the impugned judgment insofar as
dissolution of the marriage is concerned but she has
expressed her intention to seek enhancement of the
permanent alimony granted by the Family Court. We have
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8164-DB
considered the submissions made on behalf of both the
parties insofar as the grant of permanent alimony is
concerned.
7. Taking overall view of the facts as narrated
hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the
permanent alimony granted by the Family Court is not too
exorbitant. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
VNR
Ct:VK
