IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ M.F.A. No.4360/2015 (FC) BETWEEN:
SRI BHAGAVANDAS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE S.I. SALIAN, R/AT DOOR NO.21-5-651, BOLAR LEEWELL, MANGALORE – 575 002. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. PRABHA SHETTY W/O. BHAGAVANDAS D/O. M.S. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AT NIRMALA TRAVELS CITY PLAZA, K.R. RAO ROAD, KODIALBAIL POST, MANGALORE – 03 PRESENTLY R/AT KORANTHADI CROSS ROAD, KAVOOR, MANGALORE – 575 004. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2015, PASSED IN MC NO.110/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(i-a), (i-b) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the husband against the wife assailing the award of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) as permanent alimony to the wife pursuant to the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage by divorce granted on 02/01/2015 by the Family Court at Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the appellant/husband had filed M.C.No.110/2014 under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent herein. The said petition was contested by the respondent by filing statement of objections. In order to substantiate his case, the appellant/husband got himself examined as PW.1 and produced five documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-5, while the respondent/wife got examined as RW.1 and she produced two documents, which were marked as Exs.R-1 and R-2. The Family Court at Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, formulated the following points for its consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioner proves that he was subjected to cruelty and harassment due to the willful conduct of respondent and thereby committed the matrimonial offence of cruelty and on that ground he is entitled to get decree of divorce?
(ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has without reasonable cause withdrawn herself from his society and having abandoned him and stayed in her parents’ house thereby deserted him, as such he is entitled to get decree of divorce?
(iii) What order?
On the basis of the evidence on record, it answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and allowed the petition filed by the appellant herein in the following terms:
“The petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 13(1)(i-a),(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is allowed, without cost.
The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 29-11-2002 at Centenary Memorial Hall, Lady Hill, Urwa, Mangalore shall stand dissolved by granting a decree of divorce with effect from the date of decree.
I.A.No.IV filed by RW1 against PW-1 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is hereby allowed.
PW-1 is directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh) to RW1 within three months from the date of this judgment.
Draw decree accordingly.”
3. Being aggrieved by the award of permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent/wife, the appellant/husband has preferred this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
5. Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal is filed only against the award of permanent alimony to the respondent and not against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court at Mangaluru. He submitted that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded as permanent alimony to the respondent is exorbitant and excessive and hence, the same may be scaled down in this appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent has accepted the judgment and decree of the Family Court. That the respondent has not sought for enhancement of quantum of permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court. That a very reasonable amount has been awarded, which is for the lifetime of the respondent. That the appellant cannot have any grievance with regard to the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded as permanent alimony. He submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, we find that the Family Court has taken note of the fact that the appellant/husband was doing real estate business having sufficient income of more than Rs.40,000/- per month and that the respondent was also working as a staff in Nirmala Travels, but her job was in a private entity. The Family Court has also taken note of the fact that though the respondent is working, she is expected to lead a dignified life and that the husband was working at Abu-dhabi, Qatar and Dubai and that he would have earned and saved substantial amount having worked there and is presently engaged in real estate business. In the circumstances, despite the respondent earning a moderate income working in a private travel agency, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only is awarded towards permanent alimony to the respondent/wife. The same has been accepted by her as no appeal has been filed by her seeking enhancement. In the circumstances, we find that the quantum of permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court at Mangaluru is neither exorbitant nor excessive and the same is very reasonable. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*