Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 670 (KAR)

C. S. Manjula v. H. N. Krishna Shetty

2015-06-25

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10-10-2013 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 110 of 2013 (Old No. 180 of 2012). 2. The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship. At an earlier point, the petitioner had filed the petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in C. Mis. No. 305 of 1996 seeking maintenance. The Court below at that stage had granted the maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 500/- to the daughter which was payable till she attains the age of majority. The sum of Rs. 1,500/- granted to the petitioner was to be paid till her lifetime. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking enhancement of the maintenance granted earlier. The Court below by the impugned order dated 10-10-2013 has granted a further sum of Rs. 2,500/- and in that view, the total maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month has been granted. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the quantum as granted by the Court below is before this Court in this petition seeking enhancement. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers, more particularly, the order impugned herein. 4. The parties had tendered evidence which has been referred to by the Court below and as such, there is no need to re-appreciate the evidence since, such course in any event would not be possible in writ proceedings. A perusal of the nature of consideration made by the Court below based on the evidence would indicate that the fact that the first respondent has retired from service and is entitled to pension of Rs. 16,000/- cannot be in dispute since, the same has been admitted by the first respondent before the Court below and the documents to that effect has also been marked. Therefore, from the said amount of pension of Rs. 16,000/- as shown as earning of the first respondent, the appropriate quantum that is to be granted to the petitioner needs consideration. 5. The first respondent while seeking to minimise the payment of maintenance had sought to contend that apart from maintaining himself, he has to maintain his sister, who is a widow. In that regard, it is pointed out that the sister has a son. 5. The first respondent while seeking to minimise the payment of maintenance had sought to contend that apart from maintaining himself, he has to maintain his sister, who is a widow. In that regard, it is pointed out that the sister has a son. A contention no doubt is raised on behalf of the first respondent that the son of the sister is not taking care and therefore, the petitioner has to take care of his sister also. In this background, what is necessary to be noticed is that the daughter of the parties is residing with the petitioner. Even assuming for a moment that the daughter has any independent income, that in any event cannot set off the duty of the first respondent herein to maintain the petitioner, who is the wife. 6. Therefore, even if the contention as put forth by the first respondent that he has to take care of his sister is kept in view, even then, the remaining amount after the amount as already been granted by the Trial Court would be more than sufficient and if that is kept in view, the quantum as provided to the petitioner as maintenance is on the lower side. If the admitted pension of Rs. 16,000/- is also taken into consideration, the petitioner in any event on a reasonable estimate should have been provided at least 1/3rd of the said amount. Therefore, in my opinion, the appropriate maintenance in the present circumstances taking into consideration the said income, the petitioner would be entitled to the total maintenance of Rs. 5,500/- per month, As such, the order dated 10-10-2013 passed by the Court below is modified holding that the petitioner is entitled to the maintenance of Rs. 5,500/- per month. The first respondent shall pay the said maintenance without fail during every succeeding month in the same manner as had been directed by the Court below. If at all the petitioner is able to establish any other source of income to the first respondent and the need for the lumpsum expenses of the marriage of the daughter is required by the petitioner, liberty in that regard is reserved to separately agitate the same in an appropriate proceedings. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.