IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA R.P.F.C NO.8/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O LAKSHME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT MAANENAHALLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571434 ... PETITIONER (BY H.C. SUNDARESH, ADV.) AND:
LAKSHME GOWDA S/O SUBBE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.32, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS ITTAMADUGU BENGALURU 560 085. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.P. SATHYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.680/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This revision petition is listed for admission. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides it is heard finally.
2. Petitioner herein is the wife who has assailed judgment dated 08.03.2016 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Benagaluru in C.Misc.No.680/2009. By that judgment the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to her by directing the respondent to pay the said amount till her lifetime. The said petition was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner and respondent were married on 30.05.1996 at the residence of the petitioner. The respondent is working as sub-staff in Canara Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the marriage respondent intended to buy a site and to put up construction on the said site. Accordingly, he purchased the site at Ittamadugu, Bengaluru and he has put up a three storeyed building on the said site. That petitioner and respondent lived happily together for a period of eight years and they have no children. Subsequently differences arose between them and elders of the family sought to set things right, but in vain. Petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent at Women’s Police Station, Basavanagudi on 04.06.2007. The respondent on 06.06.2007 is said to have executed a document which is disputed by the petitioner.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent has married another lady and has deserted the petitioner. That the petitioner and respondent stayed together in Ittamadugu till 16.04.2009 and thereafter on the second marriage of the petitioner with Smt.Narasamma @ Radha and on her living together in the same house, the petitioner found it difficult to continue to reside there as she apprehended threat to her life. She went away to her parents’ house at Maanenahalli of Pandavapura Taluk. Thereafter she filed petition in the year 2009 seeking maintenance. The said petition was contested by the respondent stating that his net salary was Rs.2,000/- per month and he has availed housing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and another supplemental housing loan of Rs.90,000/- and there are several other deductions in his salary and that he could not afford to pay any maintenance to the petitioner herein.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Family Court raised the following issues for its consideration:
“1.Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has neglected her?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for maintenance claimed in the petition along with litigation expenses?
3. To what order she is entitled to?”
6. In support of her case, petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and she produced nineteen documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. The respondent examined himself as RW.1 and he produced eleven documents which were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R11.
7. On the basis of the said evidence, the Family Court ordered the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- from the date of the order till petitioner’s lifetime and a sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards litigation charges. Being aggrieved by the meager award of maintenance, this revision petition has been preferred by the wife.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record and also original records.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the award of maintenance is too meager and that amount of Rs.2,500/- awarded in the year 2016 by the Family Court is wholly inadequate for the sustenance of the petitioner. He further submitted that the award amount should be from the date of filing of the petition but the Family Court awarded from the date of the order which is also erroneous. He submitted that having regard to the salary that is now being received by the respondent and also keeping in mind the fact he has other sources of income namely rental income and agricultural income, the monthly maintenance has to be increased.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that even according to the salary slip for the month of August 2017 which is produced by him along with the memo, the take home salary of the respondent is only Rs.5,303.19. Though the respondent has rental income, it is very meager and is not sufficient for the sustenance of his family. In the circumstances, the respondent’s counsel sought for dismissal of the petition.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the material on record as well as original records, the following point would arise for my consideration:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced maintenance?”
12. From the detailed narration of the facts and contentions, it is noted that the respondent is working as a peon/Daftary in Canara Bank, J.P Nagar, 7th Phase branch, Bengaluru. His gross salary in the month of August 2017 as per salary slip is Rs.30,674.69 and his take home salary is Rs.5,303.19. A sum of Rs.25.371.50 is deduction. The fact that 5/6th salary of the respondent is deducted towards various deductions and only 1/6th of the salary is take home salary would indicate that the respondent is not really depending upon the salary from his employer for his sustenance. It is possible that the respondent has other sources of income such agricultural income as well as rental income which is sought to be preferred by the petitioner by producing Ex. P.5 to Ex.P12 which are RTC extracts and Ex.R.10 & Ex. R.11 are produced by the respondent which are rental agreements. Therefore, the respondent has other sources of income apart from salary income. The Family Court based on the salary slip at Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 which were of the year 2009 onwards, has awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month. But even according to the respondent the current gross salary of the respondent is Rs.30,674.69. There is every likelihood of salary being enhanced with the passage of time. The fact that the respondent has alternative other sources of income cannot also be denied by the respondent as he has admitted that he has rental income. In the circumstances, I find that Family Court was not right in awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- only as the monthly maintenance. Having regard to the total income that the respondent earns from various sources and the possibility of the income being enhanced with the passage of time and keeping in mind inflationary trends in the economy, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced monthly maintenance. In my view, the monthly maintenance would have to be Rs.7,000/- per month. The said amount is being awarded for the reasons that there is no possibility of the petitioner residing with the respondent in the near future. As it is an admitted fact that the respondent has married one Smt. Narasamma @ Radha and it would be not possible to the petitioner to stay with the respondent. She has to be at the mercy of her parents and other family members. It is not known as to how long they may permit her to reside with them. There may be circumstances whereby the petitioner may have to make her own separate arrangements. Keeping all the possibilities in mind and as per aforesaid factors the award of maintenance is enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per month. Further the said amount shall be paid from the date of evidence of the petitioner commenced before the Family Court i.e. from 25.02.2013. Though the petitioner has filed the petition in December 2009, she did not commence her evidence till 25.02.2013. The said maintenance shall be paid until further orders to be passed by the Competent Court. The respondent is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance within a reasonable time after excluding the amount paid by the respondent. The respondent is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Petition is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE HR