IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.2368/2015 (GM – FC) BETWEEN:
Mr. K.M.RAJAPPA S/O LATE K.M.MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT DOOR No.1133 BALLAL CIRCLE BALLAL COMPLEX KRISHNAMURTHY PURAM MYSORE-570031. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.MADHUSUDHAN ADIGA, ADV.) AND:
SMT.M.B.ROHITHA D/O SRI M.W.BOPANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NALVATHOKALU VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571215. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADV. FOR SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN MC.NO.61/12 DATED 14.08.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY LEARNED PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSORE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The present writ petition is filed by the husband against the order dated 14.08.2014 on the I.A filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, [‘Act’ for short] in M.C.No.61/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysore, allowing the application in part, awarding the interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of application till the disposal of the main petition and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The present petitioner who filed the petition under Section 13[1][i a] of the Act for divorce against the respondent-wife raising various contentions. The respondent-wife has filed objections to the main petition resisting the averments made in the petition. During the pendency of the proceedings, the present respondent- wife filed an application under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act to direct present the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-, reiterating the objections raised to the main petition. The said application was opposed by the husband by filing objections reiterating the averments made in the main petition.
3. The Family Court, considering the objections filed by the respondent-wife, by the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 made in M.C.No.61/2012 has allowed the application in part and awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. The petitioner contended in the grounds of the writ petition that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court awarding Rs.15,000/- to the respondent-wife is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that though the respondent alleged that the petitioner got income of Rs.5,00,000/- from Kalyana Mantapa at Gonikoppal, Kodagu and having monthly income of Rs.80,000/- from pepper and Areca nut plantation at and having monthly income of Rs.15,00,000/- is totally false. The respondent has not produced any concurrent and cogent evidence to prove the said allegations. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court cannot be sustained.
6. He would further contend that the respondent was inducted as managing partner of the company “My Stores” in the year 2006. The certificate issued by the Auditor clearly indicates that because of her mismanagement, company incurred loss to the tune of Rs.22,40,867/- in the year 2007-08, in the year 2008-09, the loss of Rs.51,96,696/- and in the year 2009-10 Rs.12,52,780/- and ultimately, the entire business stands demolished and the entire business was closed. The respondent’s father did not have any proper source of income a house was constructed by her father and has managed to purchase the car. It is further contended that the total income of the petitioner for the year 2012-13 after payment of income tax was Rs.1,66,000/- approximately which the petitioner has to pay his ex-wife Smt.Joshika Rs.60,000/- per annum and to meet educations expenses to his son. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court awarding Rs.15,000/- per month is erroneous, contrary to the material on record.
7. It is further contended that the respondent prepared Crl.Mis.No.6/2011 on the file of the MMTC, Mayohall and the said court directed the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act. The said case also resolved by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses and the Court has come to conclusion since he has already filed application before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court by interim maintenance. The said case came to be disposed off. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, Shri Shravanth Arya Tandra, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the relationship between the respondent-wife and the petitioner- husband is not disputed. The petitioner-husband has got sufficient mesne to pay the interim maintenance and he has not produced any material documents before the Court to prove that the respondent-wife can maintain herself without maintenance from the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is just and proper and therefore, sought to discuss the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 09.06.2008 and out of their wedlock, a female child Kumari.K.R.Punya was born and was aged about 5 ½ years as on the date of application is filed. The Family Court considering the applications and objections, recorded a finding that on perusal of the records, it clearly depicts that the petitioner is having landed properties. The RTC Extract produced by the petitioner depict that the name of the petitioner and also the name of his other family members. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner having coffee plantation and also raising other crops in his landed properties and also got immovable properties. In the application filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is having income of Rs.15,00,000/- per month but she has not produced any material documents in order to prove that the petitioner is having income of Rs.15,00,000/- per month and having coffee plantation and other immovable properties is not disputed by the petitioner. Certainly, he is getting some income from those properties and also from the coffee plantation. In the objections to the application of the wife, the petitioner has not disclosed what is his correct income as on the date of the application filed except stating that he has about 13 acres of plantation wet land which is under litigation, he has 25% interest in the Kalyanamantapa wherein he earns a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- year. New business set up by the petitioner is a fledgling business wherein the petitioner has 25% interest.
10. The total income of the petitioner for the year 2012-13 after payment of income tax, is Rs.1,66,000/- and he has to pay the maintenance to the ex-wife and meet the expenses of his son out of the ex-wife. Therefore, the amount sought is exorbitant and respondent is not entitled to any maintenance as she left the matrimonial house without there being any justifiable reason and further contended that he was sending Rs.1,000/- per moth to his daughter and he is not entitled for maintenance.
11. It is also relevant to state at this stage that the main matter filed for divorce was disposed off on 16.06.2017. Against the said order, Miscellaneous First Appeal filed before this Court in M.F.A.No.7020/2017. On that ground also, the present writ petition would not survive for consideration.
12. The material on record clearly depicts that it is not in dispute that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and out of their wedlock, a female child was born. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court considering the entire material on record, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has to pay Rs.15,000/- to his wife and child for maintenance till the disposal of the petition. Where in any proceeding under Section 24 of the Act, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable.
13. Admittedly in the present case, the petitioner has not produced any material documents to prove the income of the respondent and in the absence of the same, it is obligation on the part of the husband to maintain his wife and child and during the pendente lite of the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. Considering the entire material on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court come to the considered opinion that the petitioner has to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance and the same is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.