IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.44201 OF 2018(GM-FC) Between:
Smt.B.G.Nagaveni, W/o Manjunath K.P Aged about 23 years, C/o D/o Shivana Gouda, R/o Nittur Village, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District – 577 001. (By Sri.S.B.Halli, Advocate) … Petitioner And:
Manjunath K.P S/o P.Panchappa, Aged about 31 years R/o Kakargolla Village, Davanagere Taluk and District – 577 001.
…Respondent (By Sri.S.Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to enhance the interim maintenance amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and also from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses by modifying the order passed by the learned Family Court, Davangere in M.C.No.349/2017 on I.A.No.3 dated 4.9.2018 produced Annexure-E to the writ petition and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.S.B.Halli, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.S.Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Family Court, Davangere by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been granted a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of maintenance as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is employed as a Sales Man in a TV Showroom and has agricultural income and his monthly income is Rs.35,000/-. However, the Family Court has not taken into account the aforesaid fact and has directed payment of meager amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in a sum of Rs.1,000/-, the petitioner is unable to make both ends meet.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is employed as a coolie and his monthly income is only Rs.4,000/-.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. It is well settled law that Supreme Court in the case of ‘S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India’, (1990) 4 SCC 594, has held that:
“The decisions of this Court referred to above should indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration.”
7. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is well settled in law that the Court while passing the order is required to assign cogent reasons for passing the order. In an application seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Family Court is required to ascertain the income of the earning spouse, number of dependants, his personal expenses and as well as the social status of the parties and thereafter, determine the quantum of compensation to which non earning spouse is entitled.
8. In the instant case, the aforesaid exercise has apparently not been done by the Family Court and the order has been passed in perfunctory manner. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record and vice of non application of mind. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
9. The Family Court is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner-wife afresh by a speaking order, in the light of the observation made in this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-