Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 614 (KAR)

M. Kiran Kumar v. Neeladevi

2016-08-09

A.S.BOPANNA

body2016
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 13-2-2014 passed in M.C. No. 2220 of 2013 at Annexure-A to the petition. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The respondent, claiming the that petitioner had without justification not carried on the marital obligations, has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. This petition is registered in M.C. No.2220 of 2013. In the said petition, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A. No. II under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The Family Court after considering the rival contentions has ordered the monthly interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of the application. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved, is before this Court. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends the that interim maintenance as ordered by the Court below is excessive as the petitioner is unable to afford the same and the nature of consideration as made by the Court below with regard to the income is not justified. It is contended that insofar as the poultry business, which has been referred to by the Court below has been subsequently closed and the documents in that regard has been produced. Hence, the maintenance requires to be reduced. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent requests to sustain the order passed by the Family Court. It is pointed out the that Family Court after referring to the income of the petitioner and the nature of the business carried on by him, has awarded maintenance, which does not call for interference. 5. In the light of the same, I have perused the petition papers in the background of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 13-2-2014. As noticed, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. 5. In the light of the same, I have perused the petition papers in the background of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 13-2-2014. As noticed, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The fact the that respondent herein has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights would at the outset, make it clear the that respondent herein, though she is willing to carry on with the marital obligations, the petitioner had not permitted the same and in that view, the respondent herein has filed a petition seeking relief in that regard. In such proceedings, when the application seeking interim maintenance is filed, on that aspect of the matter, no further contentions could be urged by the petitioner. 6. Insofar as the quantum of maintenance, the Court below while arriving at the figure has, apart from referring to the poultry sheds situated at Kothanur Village has also taken into consideration, the standard of living of the petitioner by taking note of the car that has been purchased by the petitioner during August 2011 immediately after the respondent herein and the petitioner were living separately from August 2010. If these aspects of the matter are kept in view, though there is no specific material available before the Court below to indicate the actual income of the petitioner herein, keeping in view the standard of living of the family and on taking note of the fact the that respondent had no other income, has awarded the sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. 7. In the circumstances where with regard to the poultry business, there is no clear indication as to whether the same is being done by the petitioner even at this point of time and even with regard to the actual quantum of income, keeping in view the fact that this Court, on 13-3-2014 had directed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month be paid during the pendency of this petition and if an overall consideration is made, the said amount would be a reasonable amount to be continued as the maintenance till the main matter before the Family Court is concluded. 5,000/- per month be paid during the pendency of this petition and if an overall consideration is made, the said amount would be a reasonable amount to be continued as the maintenance till the main matter before the Family Court is concluded. Hence, to the said extent, the order dated 13-2-2014 is modified the that petitioner shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) per month from the date on which the Court below has granted the benefit to the respondent. The arrears, if any, shall be paid within one month from this date and the petitioner shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance till the main matter is disposed of before the Court below.