IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8783 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SMT KAVITHA PAVAN TIBILE, W/O SRI PAVAN HANUMANTHA RAO TIBILE, 29 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA NAGARA, HUKKERI, BELAGAM DIST, PRESENTLY R/AT SRI N.S.NARAYANA RAO, RANGADALE, NO.23, 3RD CROSS, SIR M.V.EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562114 (BY MR.G.R.JAYANNA, ADV.) AND:
SRI PAVAN H.TIBILE, S/O SRI HANUMANTHA RAO TIBILE, 34 YEARS, PRIVATE SERVICE, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA NAGARA, HUKKERI, BELAGAM DIST-591309 (BY MR.ARJUN R.KHOT, ADV.) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-E DTD:4.2.219 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. PRL. FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU IN M.C.NO.763/2017 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITIONER APPLIATION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AT ANNEXURE-C, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.G.R.Jayanna, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Arjun R. Khot, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ 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 has assailed the validity of the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Family Court, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been rejected.
4. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage on 05.06.2015. The petitioner filed an application on 05.06.2015 under Section 24 of the Act. The respondent filed an objection to the same. The Family Court by an impugned order dated 04.2.2019 rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has obtained a Master Degree in Science and is earning a monthly salary of Rs.55,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner is living in a rented accommodation and she is required to pay rent of Rs.20,000/-. It is further submitted that the respondent is employed as a software engineer and his monthly income is Rs.1,30,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance to maintain herself as per the status of the respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act and on account of dilatory tactics by the petitioner no satisfactory progress has been made in the petition till today.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the respondent is employed as software engineer and his monthly salary is Rs.1,30,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is his wife and respondent has statutory obligation to maintain his wife as per the standard. The petitioner is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.55,000/- and paying Rs.20,000/- p.m. by way of maintenance. The petitioner, therefore, needs the some amount to maintain herself as per the standard of the respondent. The respondent is admittedly drawing a salary of Rs.1,30,000/-. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the family court. The impugned order therefore, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. It is accordingly quashed. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. by way of maintenance to the petitioner-wife from the date of application during the pendency of the proceedings. Accordingly, the application filed by the wife is allowed. In the result, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS