IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA R.P.F.C.No.31/2016 BETWEEN:
M. Keshavamurthy S/o H.V.Mayashetty, Aged about 43 years, # 90, RMS Colony, II Stage, Sanjayanagar, Near Bank of India, Bengaluru – 560 094 ... PETITIONER (By Sri Asim Malik for Jadhav Law Associates, Advocates) AND M.Sharadha D/o Late M. Mahadevappa, W/o M.Keshavamurthy, Aged about 36 years, # 42, HPO & RMS colony Shaktinagar, Triveni Circle, Kalyanagiri, Mysuru-570 029 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri Y.S.H.Reddy & Sri N.H.Thyagaraj for Anil Associates, Advocates) This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated 17.11.2015 passed in C.Misc.No.122/2013 on the file of the Addl. Family Court Mysuru, partly allowing the petition filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Family Court, Mysore in C.Misc.No.122/2013 whereby the Family Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay the same.
2. The petitioner and the respondent’s marriage was solemnized on 11.06.2004. Due to some difference of opinion among the couple, the respondent was forced to leave her matrimonial home and now she is residing with her aged mother at Mysore. In C.Misc.No.241/2007 filed by the respondent before the Family Court Mysore seeking for maintenance, alleging that the petitioner herein neglected her to maintain, the Family Court, after appreciating the material evidence on record awarded a maintenance amount of Rs.3,500/- per month, against which the petitioner approached this court in RPFC No.6/2010 wherein this court reduced monthly maintenance to Rs.2,500/- reserving liberty to both the sides to seek modification as is permissible U/s 127 of Cr.P.C., in case of changed circumstances. Subsequently, due to the changed circumstances, the respondent filed petition under section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and also the litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. On evaluation of the evidence, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of passing of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Family Court being excessive or exorbitant.
3. Learned Counsel Sri Asim Malik, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent/wife herein is highly qualified, post graduate and as such, is capable of earning sufficient income to maintain herself. The respondent was employed prior to the marriage and subsequently, she resigned from the job. When the respondent is capable of maintaining herself, there is no necessity for the petitioner herein to pay the maintenance. The learned counsel further submits that even considering the escalation of prices, the maintenance amount being enhanced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- is unsustainable. Thus, the learned counsel seeks for reduction of the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife would contend that this court while reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.2,500/-, the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.8,900/- and in proportionate to the salary earned by the petitioner monthly maintenance amount was fixed by this court, reserving the liberty to both the sides to seek modification of the order if there is any changed circumstances. As such, the monthly maintenance now awarded by the Family Court considering the net salary of Rs.28,089/- drawn by the petitioner is just and reasonable and the same do not call for any interference by this court.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is manifestly clear that the respondent/wife is unemployed at present and has no sufficient means to maintain herself, proportionate to the strata and status of the petitioner/husband. It is settled legal position that the maintenance amount has to be quantified based on the income and status of the husband. The pay slip indicates that the husband is drawing net salary of Rs.28,089/- after deductions. Even considering the net salary itself, if 1/3rd of the amount is computed as just and reasonable maintenance amount, it would be Rs.10,000/-. In the circumstances, the enhancement of monthly maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.10,000/- based on the income of the husband cannot be found fault with. Though the respondent/wife being a qualified post graduate not being employed, the husband is liable to maintain her with dignity. Under such circumstances, no irregularity or infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and order.
6. Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.