Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2 (KAR)

SRIKANTH JAMAKHANDI v. RENUKA

2010-01-04

AJIT J.GUNJAL

body2010
ORDER Sri Chandrakanth G. Goulay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a divorcee inasmuch as the petition filed by the husband seeking dissolution of the marriage has been granted and that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance is on the higher side. Both the contentions do not appeal to me for the following reasons: 2. Facts relevant to the filing of this petition are as follows.- Petitioner-husband married respondent 1 on 23-4-2006 at Bijapur. According to the petitioner-husband the marriage was not consummated due to the non-co-operation of the wife. Suffice it to say that the respondent-wife left the petitioner-husband and settled in her parental house. All attempts of reconciliation failed. Hence the petitioner-husband filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage in M.C. No. 45 of 2007. The respondent-wife remains absent and ex parte decree for divorce is granted. Respondent-wife makes an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree of divorce. The said application it appears is rejected. Nevertheless respondent 1 makes an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance, during the pendency of the proceedings she makes an application seeking interim maintenance. The said application was seriously opposed by the petitioner-husband. The learned Trial Judge however, having regard to the income of the petitioner-husband has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. 3. I have perused the impugned order. Insofar the contentions of Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay are concerned it is necessary to look into Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) would clearly indicate that "wife" includes an woman who has been divorced or has obtained divorce from her husband and has not remarried. Assuming that the respondent-wife's application seeking to set aside the decree of divorce is rejected by the learned Family Court, having regard to the definition of "wife" I am of the view, respondent-wife is entitled to maintain an application maintenance. 4. Insofar as quantum is concerned it is to be noticed that the petitioner-husband is working as a Software Engineer in IBM at Pune. Material on record would indicate that the petitioner-husband is earning a sum of Rs. 60,000/- p.m. Indeed it may be true that the petitioner-husband has remarried and has a child does not necessarily disentitle the respondent-wife from seeking maintenance. Having regard to the income of the petitioner-husband. Material on record would indicate that the petitioner-husband is earning a sum of Rs. 60,000/- p.m. Indeed it may be true that the petitioner-husband has remarried and has a child does not necessarily disentitle the respondent-wife from seeking maintenance. Having regard to the income of the petitioner-husband. I am of the view, that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance cannot be said to be excessive, more so, having regard to the cost of living. 5. No merit. Petition rejected. The learned Trial Judge shall conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.