Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 348 (KAR)

Jayasimha v. Nethravathi

2013-03-19

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2013
Judgment : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order at Annexure-H passed on I.A. No.5, dated 3-1-2013 in M.C. No. 1603 of 2011 on the file of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is getting rent of Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner is only a Mason by profession. He does not have sufficient income for payment of maintenance. He further submits that the petitioner has also gifted the house standing in his name to the wife-respondent. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner is a Contractor. He owns immovable properties at Bangalore and at Mysore. Respondent has three children to look after. The first child is aged about 6 years. It is further argued that the property gifted by the petitioner to the respondent was purchased out of the amount given by the mother of the respondent. In fact, the house was constructed after availing loan from the bank. The mother of the respondent has also contributed for the construction of the house. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to pay the installments to discharge the debt. Therefore, notice was issued to the respondent under Securitasation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for recovery of the amount. The respondent raised the amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-by selling her jewellary and paid the said amount to the Bank so that she can have a roof over her head. It is further submitted that, she has been paying the installments to the Bank as the petitioner has failed to pay the same. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. 6. It is clear from the materials on record that the petitioner owns immovable properties. The property said to have been gifted by the petitioner in favour of respondent was admittedly mortgaged to the Bank. The materials on record would also indicate that when the Bank issued notice for recovery of the loan amount, the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Bank. Admittedly, respondent has to take care of three children. The property said to have been gifted by the petitioner in favour of respondent was admittedly mortgaged to the Bank. The materials on record would also indicate that when the Bank issued notice for recovery of the loan amount, the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Bank. Admittedly, respondent has to take care of three children. The first child is aged about 6 years and is going to school. It is also evident that the rent received by the respondent is not sufficient for maintenance of her children and herself. Taking over all view of the matter, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. I do not find any error in the order. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.