Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 245 (KAR)

BALAJI P. K. v. DHANAVANTRI K.

2014-02-26

A.S.BOPANNA

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 28.09.2013 passed in M.C. No. 2616 of 2012 impugned at Annexure – A to the petition. By the said order, the Court below has directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month pending consideration of the Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the Court below was not justified in passing such an order pending consideration of the application. 3. The learned counsel has taken me through the documents produced along with the petition to contend that in so far as the expenses of the children, the petitioner has been paying the same and the bills of the School which are produced therein would indicate that the petitioner, infact has borne the expenses of the children. In addition, reference is made to the document at Annexure – ‘N’ to point out that the respondent was working and earning a sum of Rs. 37,852/- It is also her case that the Bank statement which has been produced along with the petition would disclose that cash deposit has been made to her account and that she has sufficient income to maintain herself. In that view, without determining the objections raised in the application, the Court below could not have made an order to pay interim maintenance, in the meanwhile is the contention. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the order contending that due to the circumstances, which befell on the respondent, she was forced to quit the job and she does not have any income. It is also the case of the respondent that in addition to the school expenses, other expenses are also incurred for the children. 5. Notwithstanding the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the details of the said contentions need not be gone into at this juncture since the application for maintenance is still pending before the Court below for consideration. The only question for consideration at this juncture is as to whether the Court below would be justified in passing an order as has been done to pay the quantum of interim maintenance pending consideration of the application. The only question for consideration at this juncture is as to whether the Court below would be justified in passing an order as has been done to pay the quantum of interim maintenance pending consideration of the application. Certainly, the inherent power of the Court would enable the Court do so but then the quantum of amount would also have to be considered after keeping in view the income of the person who has to pay the said amount and also the inability of the person seeking for maintenance to maintain herself or himself. 6. Be that as it may. The fact that the two children are with the respondent is not in dispute. In such circumstance, I am of the opinion that instead of the quantum of monthly interim maintenance as ordered by the Court below, it would be appropriate to direct the Court below to dispose of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in a time frame. Until such time, to enable the respondent to meet the expenses of the children, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the Court below which would be withdrawn by the respondent. The said amount would be available for adjustment depending on the decision that may be taken by the Court below with regard to the maintenance. Even if the Court below ultimately arrives at a conclusion that the respondent is not entitled for maintenance, the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- would be treated as the expenses of the children. 7. In terms of the above, the Court below is directed to dispose of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act within two months from the date on which a copy of this order produced before the Court below. In terms of the above, petition stands disposed of.