Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 932 (KAR)

K. S. Vinay Babu v. N. Ramya

2014-10-28

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The parties are estranged couple. Their marriage was solemnized on 02.02.2012. Petitioner husband, filed M.C.No.1322/2013, for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The case has been contested by the respondent - wife, by filing counter. I.A.No.3 filed by the respondent, under Section 24 of the Act, despite objections filed by the petitioner, having been allowed in part, on 07.03.2014, vide order as at Annexure-G and the petitioner having been directed to pay interim maintenance at Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the date I.A.No.3 was filed, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri B. Ramesh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Pramila S.Nesargi, learned senior advocate for the respondent and perused the writ petition record. 3. Section 24 of the Act, makes a provision for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. The said provision enables the spouse, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, to apply to the Court, to direct the opposite party to pay the monthly maintenance, regard being had to the applicant's own income, if any and the income of the opposite party. The section confers discretion on the Court, in the matter of passing order for payment of interim maintenance, by having due regard to the income of the respective spouses. 4. While passing the order, the Court should take into consideration relevant factors like social status, the background from which both the parties come from and economical dependence of the applicant, etc., 5. Sri B.Ramesh, learned advocate for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the respondent who was employed earlier is now without any employment and also the fact that she has no income sufficient for her maintenance. According to I.A.No.3 vide Annexure-C, the petitioner owns the immovable properties, detailed at Sl.Nos.(a) to (e) of para 13, apart from he earning Rs.1,50,000/- p.m. In the objections filed to I.A.No.3, vide Annexure-D, the petitioner has admitted as follows: "The fact of the matter is that the monthly income of the petitioner is about Rs.40,000/-and in this regard the IT Returns filed by the petitioner will confirm the same." Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is having income of about Rs.40,000/- p.m. 6. Since there is a dispute with regard to the possession of the immovable properties stated in clauses (a) to (e) of para 13 of I.A.No.3, the same need not be considered for the present. Since the respondent - wife is unemployed and has no income for her maintenance, the Family Court is justified in ordering the payment of interim maintenance. 7. Sri B.Ramesh, learned advocate, contended that Rs.15,000/-p.m. awarded as interim maintenance is highly excessive. He submitted that the petitioner has the obligation to maintain his parents and other obligation to discharge. The submission was countered by Smt. Pramila S.Nesargi, learned senior advocate for the respondent, by contending that the partition deed, vide Annexure-E, shows possession of innumerable items of immovable properties by the petitioner's parents and his sisters and also the petitioner. She pointed out that, item Nos.1 to 3 of Schedule 'E' of the partition deed, vide Annexure-E, shows the same having been allotted in favour of the petitioner and they generating huge income. 8. The partition deed, vide Annexure-E is not in dispute. It shows that the petitioner, his parents and sisters have partitioned the properties and each of them having been allotted separate items of properties. Parents of the petitioner have been allocated 'A' schedule properties and thus, they are not dependents on the petitioner. The other obligations, if any, of the petitioner has not been disclosed. 9. There can be no set formula for fixing the amount of interim maintenance. The claim has to be considered depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, by keeping in view the status of the spouses, their respective needs, the capacity of the person who has to pay, having regard to his/her reasonable expenses for his/her own maintenance and those, he/she is obliged under the law and statutory deductions, if any. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such that she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has immovable properties shown in Schedule 'E' of Annexure - E - partition deed and also that he has declared income of about Rs.40,000/-p.m., the sum which the Family Court has awarded to the respondent is not exorbitant. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has immovable properties shown in Schedule 'E' of Annexure - E - partition deed and also that he has declared income of about Rs.40,000/-p.m., the sum which the Family Court has awarded to the respondent is not exorbitant. The respondent should live with reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with the petitioner. 11. In view of the above discussion, the Family Court has not committed any error or illegality in directing the payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/-p.m. by the petitioner to the respondent/applicant i.e., from the date I.A.No.3 was filed. In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Two months' time is granted to deposit the balance amount/arrears, in the Family Court. The Family Court is directed to decide the case with expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment(s), to either of the parties. No costs.