IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.61498 OF 2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT ASHWINI W/O H.S.ADITHYA, D/O SRI NAGARAJA RAO V AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SREE LAKSHMI SRINIDHIPRADA NILAYA, SRI NARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
(By MR.A MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADV.) AND:
SRI H S ADITHYA S/O H K SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF M.B.A.
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT COLLEGE, (AMC) BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 072 … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT (By MR.CHETAN C, ADV. FOR MR.KASHYAP N NAIK, ADV.) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 21.10.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, IN M.C.NO.28/2015 FOUND AT ANNX-H, ALLOW THIS W.P. WITH COSTS; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Chethan, learned counsel for Mr.Kashyap N.Naik, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.10.2016 by which the Trial Court has awarded a sum of `3,000/- while dealing with the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is employed as an Assistant Professor and is drawing a monthly salary of `37,884/- per month.
4. While dealing with the application under Section 24 of the Act, the Court is required to assess the income of the concerned spouse, the number of dependants on the earning spouse, the salary status of the parties as well as the personal expenses of the earning spouse and thereafter to determine the quantum of maintenance. Admittedly, the respondent is under a statutory obligation to maintain the petitioner who is the wife of the petitioner. However, the Family Court though has noted the fact that the respondent has a monthly income of `37,884/-, yet has awarded a sum of `3,000/- per month towards maintenance. Referring to the living price index, it is not possible to make both ends meet under the partly sum of `3,000/-. The petitioner is a wife of Assistant Professor and therefore, is entitled to maintain herself as per the status of the respondent.
5. In view of the preceding analysis, a sum of `3,000/- awarded by the Family Court is grossly inadequate. Accordingly, the same is enhanced to `7,500/- per month. The aforesaid amount shall be payable by the respondent from the date of application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act. At this stage, attention of the Family Court is brought to the Rules framed by this Court namely the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Sub-ordinate Courts) Rules, 2005, which provides that the matrimonial dispute has to be concluded within a period of one year from the date of its institution. In the instant case, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2015. Therefore, the Family Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV