IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.57975/2016 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.58713/2016 (GM-FC) W.P.No.57975/2016 BETWEEN:
DR. HEMA RAJALBANDI W/O AJAY SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MANVI, IB ROAD, MANVI TQ MANVI DIST., RAICHUR-584123 (BY SRI P S MALIPATIL, ADV.) AND:
SRI AJAY SHANKAR S/O NAGARAJA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO.526, 15TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SARWASTI PURAM, MYSORE-5600091 (BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF ENHANCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE FROM RS.15,000/- TO 30,000/- PER MONTH WHICH INCLUDES THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILD BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DTD:22.07.2016 PASSED IN M.C.NO.3587/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI THE ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
W.P.No.58713/2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI AJAY SHANKAR S/O S NATARAJ GUPTHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.526, 15TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SARASWATIPURAM MYSORE-570009 (BY SRI C V KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
DR. HEMA RAJALBANDI W/O AJAY SHANKAR D/O YENKANNA SETTY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.1403/5, 1ST FLOOR KHB COLONY, 3RD BLOCK, 14TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS JAYANAGAR OPP: GANESHA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560041 AND ALSO AT NO.15-5-440, IB ROAD, POST MANVI, RAICHUR-584123 (BY SRI P S MALIPATIL, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL, PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT BANGALORE, DATED 22.07.2016 PASSED IN M.C.NO.3587/2013 [ANNEXURE-N] THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner in W.P.No.57975/2016 is the wife of the respondent therein. The respondent therein who is the husband has filed the petition in W.P.No.58713/2016. In both these petitions, the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C.No.3587/2013 is assailed.
2. Since the array of the parties is different in these petitions, the parties are referred to as the ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ wherever the context so requires.
3. The wife has filed the petition in M.C.No.3587/2013. In the said proceedings, she has also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance. The Court below after taking note of the rival contentions has arrived at the conclusion that the wife is entitled to the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and the child is entitled to Rs.5,000/- per month from the husband/father. The wife contending that the maintenance as ordered by the Court below is on the lower side is seeking enhancement of the same while the husband contends that he is unable to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Court below and as such, the order is liable to be set aside or in the alternative, the maintenance as granted is required to be reduced.
4. In that light, both these petitions are taken up together and the learned counsel for the parties are heard. In the light of the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition papers including the order dated 22.07.2016.
5. The contention at present on behalf of the wife while seeking enhancement of the maintenance is that when she is unemployed and the very objections as had been filed would also indicate to the fact that she was a house wife subsequent to marriage, the maintenance as ordered would not be sufficient for her and the son. Hence, it is contended that when the husband is comfortably placed as an employee in M/s Tata Consultancy Services as a Software Engineer and drawing a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- per month, the maintenance as ordered is not justified. Hence, she seeks that the maintenance be enhanced.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent would however refer to the documents produced along with the petitions, more particularly the letter dated 23.03.2015 addressed by M/s Tata Consultancy Services which indicates that he has been relieved from the services of the Organisation with effect from 23.03.2015. It is contended that the husband due to the marital problems has suffered ‘depression’ and is undergoing treatment for the same for which also the documents are referred to at Annexures-K to M. In that view, it is contended that when the husband is not in a position to earn at this point in time, the maintenance as ordered is not justified and the same requires to be set aside or in the alternative the same is to be reduced.
7. Insofar as the said contention, it is to be noticed that the Court below in fact has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter. The fact that the wife had also filed a suit in O.S.No.193/2014 claiming a share has been referred to. Even if that aspect is kept in view, merely because she has a share in her family properties that alone cannot be the basis to deny the maintenance to the wife and the child.
8. Therefore in that circumstance, even if a contention is urged on behalf of the husband that he is presently unemployed and is suffering from illness, that by itself would not take away the responsibility of the husband in maintaining the wife and the child.
9. Hence, to the extent of the Court below arriving at the conclusion that the wife and the son are entitled to maintenance cannot be faulted. Insofar as the quantum of maintenance, though it is contended on behalf of the husband that he is unemployed, reference is also made to other properties that are owned and he being comfortably placed.
10. Be that as it may, the Court below in any event has taken into consideration the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife and child and in that light, if the status of the family prior to marital discord arising between the parties is kept in view, the quantum of maintenance as ordered by the Court below is also justified. Hence, the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Court below does not call for interference.
Accordingly, both these petitions being devoid of merit stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms