IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.23396 OF 2018 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.16369 OF 2018 (GM-FC) IN WP.No.23396/2018 BETWEEN:
SMT.B.P.CHANDRIKA W/O.PITTY NAGARJUNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS C/O.DR.B.P.KARNAKARA BANNI STREET, HUNSUR MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105 … PETITIONER (BY SRI K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI PITTY NAGARJUNA S/O.PITTY PRAKASAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.460, 1ST CROSS SUMANGAHALLI SEVASHRAM ROAD, CHOLA NAGAR HEBBAL BENGALURU-560 024 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-G) ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN MC.NO.1153/2013 (IA.NO.5).
IN WP.No.16369/2018 BETWEEN:
MR.PITTY NAGARJUNA S/O MR.PITTY PRAKASAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.460, 1ST CROSS SUMANGALI SEVA ASHRAM ROAD CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI HEBBAL BENGALURU-560 032 … PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
MRS.B.P.CHANDRIKA W/O.MR.PITTY NAGARJUNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS C/O.DR.B.P.KARNAKARA BANNI STREET, HUNSUR MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN MC.NO.1153/2013 (IA.NO.5).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri K.P.Bhuvan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.23396/2018 and for the respondent in W.P.No.16369/2018.
Sri Harish H.V., learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.23396/2018 and for the petitioner in W.P.No.16369/2018.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Family Court by which a sum of `10,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to the petitioner-wife since the date of the application i.e. 22.02.2014.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
5. Admittedly, the respondent-husband is employed as a Scientific Officer in Indian Institute of Science and his take home salary is `66,000/-. It is not in dispute that he is living along with his old aged parents and is required to take care of his parents. It is also not in dispute that there are no children born out of wedlock.
6. In view of the above and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the number of dependents of the respondent-husband, the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is enhanced from `10,000/- to `15,000/- per month. However, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the respondent- husband, the enhanced amount of maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order of the Family Court i.e. 23.03.2018.
7. As the matter is at the arguments stage before the Family Court, the Family Court is directed to hear the arguments and conclude the proceedings positively within a period of one month from today.
With the aforesaid direction, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.