Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 837 (KAR)

K. R. Arun v. M. Latha

2014-09-22

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
ORDER A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J. 1. These writ petitions are directed against an order dated 27.03.2014 passed in M.C. No. 4029/2011, by the IV Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, partially allowing I.A. No. 3 and allowing I.A. No. 4 and directing the petitioner to pay, Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent, apart from payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 14.05.2007. The parties are estranged couple. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 4029/2011 under S. 13(1)(ib)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent, to pass a decree of divorce and dissolve the marriage solemnized between them. 3. The respondent having entered appearance on 11.04.2012, through her advocate, the case was referred for mediation on 13.06.2012. Failure report dated 03.10.2012 having been received from the Mediation Center, the respondent has filed on 04.02.2013 statement of objections and contested the case. Affidavit evidence, in lieu of examination in chief of the petitioner was filed on 24.04.2013 and the case was adjourned for cross-examination. On 25.06.2013, the respondent filed I.A. No. 3, under S. 24 of the Act, to direct the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and also pay Rs.10,000/- towards her litigation expenses. Statement of objections to the above application was filed on 05.07.2013. 4. The respondent filed I.A. No. 4, under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.10 of the Family Courts Act, to direct the petitioner to furnish the details of his movable and immovable assets. Separate statement of objection was filed to I.A. 4. 5. By a Common Order dated 27.03.2014, I.A. No. 3 was allowed and payment as above was directed. I.A. No. 4 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to provide the details of his movable and immovable assets. 6. Sri R. Balaji, learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that the respondent has the capacity to earn and she being well qualified has chosen to remain idle and hence, cannot seek maintenance and litigation expenses. He submitted that the respondent has not put forth any effort to get into employment and earn for herself, since, her qualification would fetch her the money required for her maintenance. He submitted that the respondent has not put forth any effort to get into employment and earn for herself, since, her qualification would fetch her the money required for her maintenance. He submitted that the petitioner, an engineering graduate, being unemployed, is now studying L.L.B., and has no income to provide maintenance to the respondent. Reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, reported in 2000 (II) DMC 170 . He submitted that the order passed allowing I.A. 3 being irrational and illegal is liable to be quashed. Learned advocate did not put forth any argument as against the allowing of I.A. No. 4. He did not point out any material error or illegality in the matter of allowing I.A. No. 4. 7. Smt. L. Manjula, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand contended that even according to the petitioner, the respondent is not keeping good health and she being not employed and having no means sufficient for her maintenance, the Family Court is justified in directing payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. She made submissions in support of the impugned order. 8. In Neeta Rakesh Jain vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, (2010) 12 SCC 242 , the Apex Court, has held as follows: "9. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance, the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. 10. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance, the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. 10. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute." 9. The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and to all those he is obliged under law and also statutory but involuntary payment or deductions from his income. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she used to when she lived with her husband and she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. The amount when fixed cannot be excessive. 10. An application filed to direct payment or interim maintenance is required to be considered by keeping in view the averments made in the application and reply thereto and also the documents produced by the parties. The tendency appears to be the applicant exaggerates the income and the opponent suppresses the same. There has to be an honest purpose in both the parties, which unfortunately, I find is lacking in this case as well. 11. I.A. No. 4 filed by the respondent-wife, to direct the petitioner-husband, to furnish the details of his movable and immovable assets was allowed along with the order passed on I.A. No. 3. The Family Court, in view of allowing I.A. No. 4, ought to have deferred consideration of the decision on I.A. No. 3. 11. I.A. No. 4 filed by the respondent-wife, to direct the petitioner-husband, to furnish the details of his movable and immovable assets was allowed along with the order passed on I.A. No. 3. The Family Court, in view of allowing I.A. No. 4, ought to have deferred consideration of the decision on I.A. No. 3. In deciding both the applications together, there is procedural impropriety, since, the compliance of the order passed on I.A. No. 4 has a material bearing for consideration and decision of I.A. No. 3. The petitioner has not disclosed the details of the movable and immovable assets sought in I.A. No. 4. There is no ground to interfere with the order allowing I.A. No. 4. Even otherwise the petitioner should disclose the details sought in I.A. 4. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the reality of the situation and there being no dispute that the respondent is not employed in any gainful work and is also not keeping good health, pending reconsideration and disposal of I.A. No. 3, as an interim measure, the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent, Rs. 2,000/- per month with effect from the date I.A. No. 3 was filed, towards interim maintenance apart from payment of litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part and the impugned order is quashed to the extent it pertains to I.A. No. 3. The order passed allowing I.A. No. 4 remains undisturbed. The petitioner shall comply with the order passed on I.A. No. 4, within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the Family Court shall reconsider I.A. No. 3 and pass order afresh. It is made clear that I have not gone into the question as to what would be the amount payable by way of interim maintenance per month to the respondent and Rs. 2,000/- per month ordered to be paid is only interim arrangement, till I.A. No. 3 is decided afresh. The petitioner shall pay the amount as above, from the date of I.A. No. 3 was filed and the litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- before 15th November, 2014. No order as to costs.