IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.37174/2017 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI PRASHANTA S/O NINGAIAH G AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO-52, 1ST CROSS RANGANATHA COLONY OPP: BHEL, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-26 AND ALSO NO.24, 5TH CROSS DUBASIPALYA MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE TO NURSURY RV COLLEGE-POST, KENGERI BENGALURU-29 (BY SRI S B HALLI, ADV.) AND:
SMT. PRAMODINI M.P., W/O B.N. PRASHANTA D/O PRASANNAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO-3471, 20/C MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE VIJAYANAGAR MYSORE-570001 (BY SRI VINAY N, ADV. FOR SRI MANMOHAN P N, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, MYSURU IN M.C.NO.565/2015 ON I.A.NO.2 DATED 27.06.2017 VIDE ANNEX-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 27.06.2017 passed on IA No.2 in M.C.No.565/2015.
2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent.
Due to certain differences in their married life, they are residing separately. The petitioner has instituted the petition in M.C.No.565/2015. In the said proceedings, the respondent has filed the application in IA No.2 seeking interim maintenance as prayed therein. The Court below through the order impugned dated 27.06.2017 has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- to the daughter. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition papers including the impugned order. The employment of the petitioner as an Assistant Professor at the Matha Amruthanandamayi School of Engineering, Bengaluru is not in dispute. Though the salary as contended is being paid to him, deductions have also been taken note in detail by the Court below as has been stated in para 7 of the order. In that light, when the take home salary of the petitioner is to the extent as has been indicated therein, the issue is as to whether an additional amount was required to be granted to the respondent when it is evident that she is employed and is earning a sum of Rs.12,540/- per month. Further, the sum of Rs.10,000/- is also ordered to the daughter. Since the daughter is residing with the respondent, if the said sum of Rs.10,000/- is maintained, the same would be sufficient for the present and the additional amount of Rs.5,000/- ordered to the respondent would not be justified. To that extent the order calls for modification.
4. In that regard if the modification is effected, what is also to be kept in view is that in addition to the sum of Rs.10,000/- ordered for maintenance for the daughter, the educational expenses of the daughter is to be taken care. In that regard, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to bear the same.
5. Hence keeping all these aspects in view, the order dated 27.06.2017 is modified to the extent of the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- as ordered to the respondent herein. However, the sum of Rs.10,000/- as ordered to the daughter shall be paid to the respondent in the manner as directed by the Court below. It is further made clear that when the respondent secures admission for the daughter to the school, the expenses as incurred towards the educational expenses shall be borne by the petitioner. In that light, the details of the expenses as incurred by the respondent shall be furnished to the Court below whereupon the petitioner shall be directed to pay the additional amount of maintenance. Further liberty is also reserved to the respondent to make appropriate application before the Court below if there is any change in circumstance and additional maintenance is required in future.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms