Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 106 (KAR)

MAHANTESH GOUDAPPA WALI v. LAXMI @ GANGAMMA

2015-01-20

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2015
Order Marriage of the parties was solemnised on 17.03.2009 and a male child was born on 12.08.2010. On account of lack of compatibility between the spouses, a complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent in Ankalgi Police Station in Crime No.41/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 406 and 498 IPC was registered on 12.06.2012. 2. M.C. No. 55/2012 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Gokak, to pass a decree of divorce and for dissolution of marriage. Police having conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and C.C. No. 1195/2012 was registered on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Gokak. Respondent having filed I.A.1, in M.C. No. 55/2012, despite objections filed by petitioners, application having been allowed inpart, entitling respondent and the child, pendentilite maintenance at Rs.5,000/- each vide order dated 7.10.2013, this writ petition was filed to quash the said order. 3. Petitioner is serving as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. Pursuant to the order passed on 6.1.2015, petitioner filed Memo and produced his pay slip for the months of September 2013 and November and December 2014. Monthly pay bill of December 2014 shows the gross pay as Rs.25,711/- and there being Government deductions of Rs.2326/- and other deductions of Rs.1750/-, net amount drawn was Rs.21,635/-. 4. Indisputedly, petitioner has to make provision for maintaining his parents, who are aged and not keeping good health. The court below without taking into consideration the actual salary of the petitioner and being of the opinion that he is doing dignified work and drawing handsum salary and is leading a comfortable life has directed the payment of interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- each, to the respondent and minor child. Since, credible evidence has been produced with regard to the salary of the petitioner, noticed supra, the sum which was directed to be paid as per the impugned order by the Family Court, is excessive and unreasonable. 5. By an order dated 22.01.2014, petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by the trial Court, with litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/- before this Court. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has complied with the said order. The petitioner has deposited 50% of the interim maintenance. 5. By an order dated 22.01.2014, petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by the trial Court, with litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/- before this Court. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has complied with the said order. The petitioner has deposited 50% of the interim maintenance. Respondent in order to lead a decent life along with her minor child and take care of her expenses would need atleast Rs.7500/- per month. Petitioner can be directed to pay 1/3rd of his earnings towards maintenance of respondent and minor child. In the said view of the matter, impugned order calls for modification. 6. The petitioner, for the present, can be directed to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the respondent, to maintain her and the child. However, when the M.C.No.55/2012 is decided, if a need were to arise with regard to the determination of permanent alimony payable to the respondent and the child, the same shall be determined with reference to the evidence which may be brought on record by both sides. In the result, writ petition is allowed inpart and the impugned order is modified. As against the liability of payment of Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent and the child separately, there shall be liability on the part of the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,500/- in all, pending consideration of M.C.55/2012, which be decided with expedition and within a period of six months from the next hearing date. The Trial Court shall decide the case on its merit uninfluenced by the interim arrangement made by this order. Arrears, if any, be deposited within a period of one month. The amount in deposit be released in favour of the respondent. There shall be no change with regard to the litigation cost as ordered by this Court, noticed supra. Consequently, I.A.1/2014 filed to vacate the interim order does not survive for consideration and it is disposed of accordingly.