Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 249 (KAR)

GOWRAMMA v. P. KRISHNAPPA ALIAS P. KRISHNA REDDY

2000-03-22

ASHOK BHAN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2000
ASHOK BHAN, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT-WIFE (for short 'the appellant') was married to the respondent on 10th of June, 1973. The marriage did not run smoothly and they started living separately after a few years. ( 2 ) IN the year 1987 appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 751 of 1987 for maintenance against the respondent. Appellant was granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. Appellant filed an application seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation which is pending. ( 3 ) APPELLANT filed the suit from which this appeal arises seeking a declaration that the appellant has right of residence in the house of the respondent. A direction was sought to the defendant to provide suitable accommodation to her in the schedule property. Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the amount of maintenance which the appellant is getting from the respondent would include the expenses for residence as well and the appellant is not entitled to the declaration sought for. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal. Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant apart from the amount of maintenance, is entitled to a residence as well; that the provision of residence would be in addition to the amount of maintenance awarded. ( 5 ) WE do not accept this contention. While granting maintenance the Court has to take into consideration various factors including the financial status of the husband and the wife. The Court while granting the r amount of maintenance took into consideration the financial status of the husband, the income of the appellant and the amount of maintenance which would be required to maintain the appellant. While fixing the amount of compensation, the Court would be deemed to have taken into consideration the residential requirement of the claimant. At the time of fixing the amount of maintenance the appellant could argue that the amount of maintenance awarded is not sufficient for providing her with residence, clothing and day-to-day expenses. While fixing the amount of compensation the Trial Court shall take all these factors into consideration and fix the amount of compensation keeping in view the financial status of the husband. It would include all requirements of the applicant. After the fixing of the amount of maintenance a separate suit for claiming residence or any other necessity which may be deemed essential would not be maintainable. It would include all requirements of the applicant. After the fixing of the amount of maintenance a separate suit for claiming residence or any other necessity which may be deemed essential would not be maintainable. At the time of the granting of the maintenance all these questions have to be raised and argued and the court is required to pass the order taking into consideration various factors. Separate suit for every or any one of the necessities would not be maintainable. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. --- *** --- .