Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 789 (KAR)

B. R. Ajay Kumar v. Ranjitha Ray R.

2014-09-05

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
ORDER A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J. 1. The parties married on 20.09.2009. Petitioner in W.P. No. 36449/2014 filed M.C. No. 93/2013 in the Family Court, Mysore, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), to pass decree of divorce. Subsequently, petitioner in W.P. No. 25652/2014 filed M.C. No. 160/2013, under Section 9 of the Act, to order restitution of conjugal rights. I.A. No. 2 was filed in M.C. No. 93/2013, to direct payment of interim alimony by the husband. Finding no merit in the objections filed to the said application, Family Court allowed I.A. No. 2 in part and directed the husband to pay interim maintenance at Rs. 3,500/- p.m. with effect from 03.05.2014. That apart, Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards litigation expenses. Assailing the said order, husband has filed W.P. No. 25652/2014 and wife has filed W.P. No. 36449/2014. Mr. K. Abhinav Anand, learned advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 25652/2014, contended that the petitioner in W.P. No. 36449/2014 having withdrawn from the company of her husband, without any justifiable reason, is unjustified in seeking interim maintenance from his client, who is practising as a junior advocate, in the chamber of a senior advocate and has no earnings from the profession. He submitted that the wife is not dependent on the husband, since she is the only daughter of her father, who is an Officer in LIC and getting handsome salary, apart from owning a comfortable house in Mysore city. He submitted that on any view of the matter, the sum ordered to be paid being excessive, interference is called for. 2. Mr. R.C. Nagaraj, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 36449/2014, on the other hand contended that the quantum of maintenance ordered is meager and that the payment ought to have been ordered to be paid from the date I.A. No. 2 was filed. He sought for modification of the impugned order. 3. An attempt was made to bring the parties together by directing them to mediation. Learned Mediator reported that, the spouses, for the present, are not likely to join each other and the effort putforth to bring the parties together did not materialize. 4. Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. 3. An attempt was made to bring the parties together by directing them to mediation. Learned Mediator reported that, the spouses, for the present, are not likely to join each other and the effort putforth to bring the parties together did not materialize. 4. Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. As per the said provision, the spouse, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, may apply to the Court for relief. The provision confers wide discretion on the Court, in the matter of directing payment of maintenance to the spouse, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his maintenance. Though the provision confers wide discretion to the Court, in fixing the interim maintenance, the Court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. The Court shall have to take into consideration the means of the parties and other factors, like social status, the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the applicant. The order passed being only of interim nature, detailed exercise is unnecessary. However, the Court should take into consideration all relevant factors and arrive at a correct conclusion with regard to the payment or otherwise of interim maintenance by one spouse to the other. 5. Petitioner in W.P. No. 25652/2014 is an Advocate enrolled on 17.08.2007. He joined the office of Mr. K. Suman, a Senior Advocate. Indisputedly, petitioner in W.P. No. 36449/2014 is not employed and has no independent income sufficient for her maintenance. The Court below by taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the husband has put in more than 7 years of practice as an advocate and practising in the Law Courts at Bangalore, directed the payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses, noticed supra. 6. Mr. K. Abhinav Anand, learned advocate submitted that his client having left the office of the Senior advocate, has now opened an office along with another advocate and is yet to settle down and in the circumstances, the maintenance amount ordered to be paid being excessive may be brought down. I do not find justification to modify the order passed by the trial Court and reduce the maintenance amount or the litigation expenses. I do not find justification to modify the order passed by the trial Court and reduce the maintenance amount or the litigation expenses. No credible material was produced in proof of the amount paid by the Senior advocate, along with whom the petitioner in W.P. No. 25652/2014 was practising. Having put in 8 years of practice, he can be expected to earn more than Rs. 20,000/- p.m. The petitioner in M.C. No. 93/2013 being unemployed, needs at least Rs. 3,500/- for her maintenance i.e., shelter, food and clothing. In the said view of the matter, the impugned order is neither irrational nor illegal calling for interference. Ordinarily, the maintenance amount ought to have been ordered to be paid with effect from the date I.A. No. 2 was filed. However, the Court below in exercise of its discretion has directed payment from the date the order was passed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find justification in the claim made by the petitioner in W.P. No. 36449/2014, that the impugned order may be modified and the payment as determined by the Court, be directed to be paid, with effect from 04.03.2013 i.e., the date on which M.C. No. 93/2013 was filed. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Petitioner in W.P. No. 25652/2014 is granted two months time to pay the accumulated arrears and the litigation expenses. However, he shall pay the interim maintenance regularly, with effect from 01.09.2014, as and when it falls due. The Trial Court is directed to decide the cases with expedition and within a period of one year from the date a copy of this order is placed on its record, by either of the parties, without granting any unnecessary adjournment/s to either of the parties.