Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 250 (KAR)

SUMY SREEKUMAR v. RIJESH RAM P.

2016-03-09

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2016
ORDER : A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Matter is at the stage of final hearing. 2. Present revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners who an the wife and daughter of the respondent No. 1 herein. On a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act), the learned Judge of the trial Court has ordered the first respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance to the minor child from the date of the order till the child attains majority and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-per year towards the educational expenses of the second respondent who is the minor. 3. An appeal had been filed under Section 29 of the above Act by the husband. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has scaled down the maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. It is this order dated 21.09.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.25030/2015 which is called in question on various grounds in this revision petition. 4. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, petitioner No. 1 is also working in M/s. Tata Consultancy Services and getting a salary of Rs.34.996/- and deduction is to an extent of Rs.4,493/-. Her take home salary is Rs.30,503/-. The monthly gross salary of the first respondent - Rijesh Ram. P is Rs.47,806/- and deduction is to an extent of Rs.3,083/- which includes Provident Fund Contribution of Rs.2,096/-p.m. The net take home salary is Rs.44,723/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the first respondent is a pensioner and getting two pensions, which fact is not seriously disputed. Taking into consideration the status of the parties, reasonable amount is to be awarded for the maintenance of the child. 5. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Jayalakshmi v. T. Prakash Rao (1996) 8 SCC 501 that the father is duty bound to see that the daughters are married and he has to take care of the expenses towards the marriage. Such being the case, in a city like Bangalore, the expenses of maintaining a minor child would be very high and its minimum requirement has to be taken care of. Such being the case, in a city like Bangalore, the expenses of maintaining a minor child would be very high and its minimum requirement has to be taken care of. Taking into consideration the status of the parties and their income, this Court is of the opinion that the First Appellate Court has not assigned cogent and valid reasons to reduce the monthly maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-per month. 6. In the case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim - AIR 1997 SC 3280 it is held that the girl child will have to be looked after by the father till she gets married. The second petitioner is hardly aged about 7 years and she is studying in Delhi Public School, White filed, Bangalore. Naturally the admission fee and monthly tuition fee, travelling expenses would be quite high. Apart from this, the childs health will have to be looked after. In fact, the learned Judge of the trial Court has assessed the entire evidence on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities. 7. On going through the records, this Court is of the opinion that the First Appellate Court has not adopted right approach to the real state of affairs. The only ground to reduce the monthly maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month is that the first petitioner is also employed. Just because the first petitioner is employed, the first respondent cannot be absolved of his responsibility. Taking all this into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that no good grounds are made out to sustain the order passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the revision petition is to be allowed and order of the trial Court will have to be upheld. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER 8. Revision petition is allowed and judgment passed in Crl.A.No.25030/2015 is set aside and final order in Crl. Misc. No. 179/2011 is restored. 9. It is made clear that the educational expenses ordered to the child is to be treated for the academic year and the first respondent is duty bound to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as educational expenses every year and the same is subject to the revision pendency up to the course the child pursue. 10. No. 179/2011 is restored. 9. It is made clear that the educational expenses ordered to the child is to be treated for the academic year and the first respondent is duty bound to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as educational expenses every year and the same is subject to the revision pendency up to the course the child pursue. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the first respondent may be directed to deposit or transfer the monthly maintenance and education expenses to the S.B. A/c. No. of the first petitioner which is produced below: 11. S.B. A/c. No.0430101900901, Canara Bank, Indiranagar Branch. Bangalore, IFSC code: CNRB0000430. 12. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to deposit the maintenance amount and also the educational expenses to the savings bank account of the first petitioner, and the monthly maintenance be deposited on or before 8th of every month without fail. 13. The educational expenses ordered by the trial Court shall be deposited in the first week of May every year.