Karnataka High Court
Smt. Manjula. L @ Nagarathna vs Sri. B. Krishna Mohan on 8 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45132
RPFC No. 66 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REV. PET. FAMILY COURT NO. 66 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA L @ NAGARATHNA
W/O KRISHNA MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.681, 8TH CROSS,
KUVEMPU ROAD, NEAR RING ROAD,
HINKAL, MYSURU-570 017
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. B. KRISHNA MOHAN
S/O LATE RAMASHASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.14, 10TH CROSS,
Digitally signed A.Y.R. LAYOUT, SETTIHALLI,
by R DEEPA NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, JALAHALLI WEST,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 015
COURT OF ALSO AT OFFICE, MTS CIVILIAN ACCOUNT AOC,
KARNATAKA AIR FORCE STATION,
JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. DHANUSHRI R., ADV. FOR
SRI. R. KIRAN., ADV.)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2019
PASSED IN C.MIS. NO.161/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125
OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45132
RPFC No. 66 of 2019
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of
the Family Courts Act challenging the order dated
29.01.2019 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.161/2017.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this
revision petition are as under:
- The petitioner and the respondent got married on
01.05.2014 as per the customs prevailing in the
community. The petitioner and the respondent led a
happy married life. The respondent and his family
members started ill-treating the petitioner, and the
respondent drove the petitioner out of the house. The
petitioner is residing separately. The petitioner filed a
petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance
in Crl.Misc.161/2017. Hence prays to allow the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:45132
3. The respondent filed objections contending that
the petitioner is having serious health problems, and the
respondent had taken her to Leela Hospital, Bengaluru and
came to know that the petitioner is suffering from
gynaecological issues which cannot be cured and she
cannot conceive. It is contended that the respondent has
taken maximum care of the petitioner. It is contended
that the petitioner has filed false criminal case before the
police against the respondent and his family members.
Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
4. The petitioner to prove her case examined
herself as PW1, and marked three documents as Exs.P.1 to
P.3. In rebuttal, the respondent was examined as RW1,
and no documents were marked. The Family Court after
recording the evidence, considering the oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the petition-in-part with
cost and directed the respondent to pay Rs.7,000/- per
month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the
date of petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:45132
5. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court, filed this
revision petition for enhancement.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the maintenance amount awarded by the Tribunal is on
lower side. He submits that the respondent is drawing
salary of more than Rs.50,000/-, and that the respondent
has not made any arrangement for accommodation to the
petitioner. Hence, he submits that the revision petition
may be allowed and the maintenance amount awarded by
the Family Court be enhanced.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent supports the impugned order, and submits that
the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is
just and proper, and does not call for any interference.
She further submits that the petitioner has suppressed
NC: 2024:KHC:45132
that she was suffering from cist and uterus fibroid.
Hence, the petitioner has played fraud on respondent at
the time of marriage. Hence, she submits that the
respondent has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage
which is pending. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
9. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to
enhance the maintenance amount"?
11. There is no dispute with regard to the
relationship of the petitioner and respondent as husband
and wife, and it is also not in dispute that the respondent
had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and the said
petition was allowed. The petitioner aggrieved by the
order passed in Matrimonial Case, has preferred an MFA
which is pending for consideration before this Court.
Further, it is the case of the respondent that the
NC: 2024:KHC:45132
respondent is taking care of the petitioner and paying the
maintenance amount. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing
separately, and to prove that the respondent is having the
capacity to pay the maintenance amount, learned counsel
for the respondent was asked to file the salary certificate
of the respondent. Today, the respondent has filed a
memo along with the salary certificate for the month of
September, 2024 which reveals that the respondent is
drawing net salary of Rs.56,498/-.
12. From the perusal of the salary certificate, the
petitioner is drawing salary of more than Rs.50,000/-. As
per the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner is
suffering from gynaecological issues and needs frequent
treatment. She needs more money for her treatment.
The maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court is on
the lower side the petitioner needs atleast more than
Rs.18,000/- p.m. for her food, medicine, etc.. Therefore,
petitioner has made out a ground for enhancement of the
maintenance amount.
NC: 2024:KHC:45132
13. In view of the above discussion, the revision
petition is allowed. The impugned judgment passed in
Crl.Misc.No.161/2017 dated 29.01.2019 by the I
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru is
modified. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.19,000/-
per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from
the date of petition.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
BRN
