Karnataka High Court
Chandrabhanu vs C Ceeksha on 19 November, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
RSA No. 600 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2020 (RES)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRABHANU
S/O LATE A.N.RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85, STATION BAUNDARI,
KONEHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR-572 217.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MOHAN.K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
C.CEEKSHA
D/O CHANDRABHANU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT BAGANAMANE,
Digitally signed by THALTHARA-SHETHALLI,
THEJASKUMAR N HANAGAL POST,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka SOMAVARAPETE TALUK,
COORGE DISTRICT-571 236.
...RESPONDENT
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, A JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
RSA No. 600 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.K.N.Mohan., counsel for the appellant has appeared in
person.
2. This is an appeal from the Court of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Tiptur.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial
Court.
4. The brief facts are these:
The plaintiff - Kumari C.Cheeksha is the daughter of
defendant No.3 - Chandrabhanu. Due to difference in opinions
and misunderstandings, the father and mother of the plaintiff
dissolved their marriage by filing a mutual divorce petition in
M.C.No.649/2007. The plaintiff contended that she is studying
in a school and participated in the swimming competition by
representing the school as well as Karnataka State. However,
her father has failed to provide financial help for her
development. Therefore, she was constrained to take shelter
under the Court of law and filed a suit seeking maintenance of
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month from her
father.
After service of the suit summons, the third defendant
appeared through his counsel filed a written statement and
denied the plaint averments. However, he admitted the
relationship between him and the plaintiff. Among other
grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed
issues, and the parties led evidence and exhibited the
documents. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide
Judgment dated 23.09.2017 partly decreed the suit and
directed the third defendant to pay a monthly maintenance
amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff month by month from
the date of suit till the date of her marriage and dismissed the
suit against defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5. The third defendant
assailed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court before the
First Appellate Court in R.A.No.56/2018 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. On an appeal, the First Appellate
Court vide Judgment dated 26.09.2019 partly allowed the
appeal and directed the third defendant to pay monthly
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the plaintiff from the
date of suit till her marriage. Hence, the third defendant has
filed this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
5. Counsel Sri.Mohan.K.N., for the appellant submits
that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court are contrary to the law and facts and the
evidence available on record.
Next, he submits that both the Courts have erred in
directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance to the
respondent without appreciating the material evidence on
record.
A further submission is made that the Courts have erred
in decreeing the suit by overlooking the evidence of PW1 that
she is having sufficient means to maintain the minor daughter.
Counsel vehemently contended that the appellant is not
having capacity to pay amount towards the maintenance as he
has no such income.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the
findings recorded by both the Courts lack judicial reasoning.
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
Therefore, he prayed that this Second Appeal may be admitted
by framing substantial questions of law.
Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with
care.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not
require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the
daughter of third defendant. Contending that her father failed
to provide financial help for her development, the plaintiff
sought the aid of the Court for maintenance. The third
defendant contended that he has no visitation rights of his
minor child and his wife had admitted in the M.C proceedings
that she will not claim maintenance amount for herself and also
for the daughter. Hence, the question of maintaining the minor
daughter does not arise. In this Court also, he has adhered to
the said contention and a further contention is taken that he
has no capacity to pay the huge amount towards maintenance.
This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention.
The liability of a Hindu to maintain others is of two kinds,
(i) personal liability independently of the possession of any
property to maintain, which arises in some cases from the mere
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
relationship between the parties and (ii) liability depending
altogether on the possession of property.
The right of maintenance under the Hindu Law is founded
on certain texts, one of which is that of Manu:
व ृ ौ चमातापतरौ सा वीभाया सतः
ु शशःू ।
अ यकायशतं कः वा भत यामनरु वीत ।।
which when translated means; "It is declared by Manu that the
aged mother and father, the chaste wife and an infant child
must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds".
The Hindu law places on every man a personal obligation
to maintain his aged parents, his virtuous wife and his minor
sons and unmarried daughters.
I would observe that as a family is concerned, the head of
the family (particularly a male member) has the onus of
maintaining his family. He cannot shirk his responsibility from
maintaining the family under the grab of less income.
Moreover, a husband is required to provide basic necessities for
his wife and child.
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the Trial Court
extenso referred to the material on record and rightly
concluded that being the father the third defendant is bound to
maintain his minor child by providing proper sustenance,
education and medical treatment and he cannot exonerate
himself from his liability of maintaining his child and directed
him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) per month to the plaintiff from the date of suit
till the date of her marriage and partly decreed the suit.
On an appeal, the First Appellate Court has examined the
evidence on record and re-appreciated it. I am satisfied that it
has been appreciated from the correct perspective. The
concurrent finding of facts, however erroneous, cannot be
disturbed by the High Court in the exercise of the power under
Section 100 of CPC. The substantial question of law has to be
distinguished from a substantial question of fact. In my view,
the findings recorded by both Courts are either vitiated by non-
consideration of relevant evidence or by an erroneous approach
to the matter. Where based on evidence on record the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court had concurrently arrived at
a finding of fact, the High Court in the Second Appeal cannot
NC: 2024:KHC:46819
reverse the said concurrent findings under ordinary
circumstances.
It is perhaps well to observe that after the 1976
amendment, the scope of Section 100 of the CPC has been
drastically curtailed and narrowed down. Under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (as amended in 1976) the
jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgment of
the Court below is confined to hearing substantial questions of
law. Interference with a finding of a fact by the High Court is
not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of the evidence.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in
this appeal. As a result, I find no merit in this appeal.
8. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is
dismissed at the stage of admission.
In view dismissal of the appeal at the stage of admission,
pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
