Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 230 (KAR)

M. H. Santhosh v. G. M. Shreya @ Sridevi

2018-02-20

A.S.BOPANNA

body2018
JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The rival parties to these petitions are the husband and wife. The ranking assigned to them is different in these petitions. Hence, for the purpose of convenience, they are referred to as husband and wife wherever the context requires so. 2. The husband has filed the petition in M.C. No. 2026/2012. In the said proceedings, the Court below had granted the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the wife through the order dated 10.10.2014. When this was the position, the wife has filed an application in I.A. No. 17 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking additional maintenance namely, enhancement of the maintenance which had been granted earlier. The husband filed an application in I.A. No. 18 seeking reduction or recall of the order of maintenance as granted by the Court below. 3. The Court below, having considered the rival contentions, through the order dated 04.08.2017 rejected both the applications confirming the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- which had been granted earlier. It is in that circumstance, both the husband as also the wife are before this Court. 4. The husband, in W.P. No. 41240/2017 is assailing the order continuing the interim maintenance, insofar as rejecting the application in I.A. No. 18 whereby, the husband had sought that the maintenance as ordered earlier be set aside/recalled. 5. The wife has filed the petition in W.P. No. 45986/2017 seeking that the application in I.A. No. 17 be allowed and the maintenance be enhanced. 6. In that background, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petitions papers. 7. The learned counsel for the husband while seeking that the maintenance as ordered earlier be set aside/recalled would contend that the wife is gainfully employed and as such seeking maintenance from the husband would not be justified. To contend so, learned counsel has referred to the documents which has also been taken note by the Court below at Ex.P37 and in that light, has contended that the wife is employed in Yathiraj Associates for which the details had been furnished by him and therefore, it is contended that the Court below without referring to these aspects of the matter has arrived at a wrong conclusion. In addition, it is contended that the very maintenance as ordered is not justified in a circumstance, where the wife has her own income and the prayer made in any event would not be justified. 8. The learned counsel for the wife would however seek to dispute the position that she is employed and insofar as the documents that has been relied on by the husband to contend that she is employed in Yathiraj Associates, it is pointed out that the same are not reliable and therefore, the Court below has appropriately declined to take note of the same. It is his contention that the Court below to the said extent was justified. 9. Learned counsel for the wife however contends that the Court below has not taken into consideration the expenses incurred by her including the rental expenses, so as to consider the application for enhancement of maintenance and to that extent, the learned counsel would contend that the maintenance is required to be enhanced. 10. Having taken note of the rival contentions, I have perused the petitions papers, including the order impugned dated 04.08.2017. At the outset, it is necessary to take note that when the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- had been ordered by the Court below through the order dated 10.10.2014, the parties were before this Court in W.P. No. 52250/2014 connected with W.P. No. 190/2015. This Court having taken note of the rival contentions had through the order dated 16.07.2015 arrived at the conclusion that the maintenance as ordered is justified. Even in the said proceedings, the contention as put forth with regard to the wife being employed was also taken into consideration in detail by this Court and in that circumstance was of the opinion that the contention as put forth on behalf of the husband would not be acceptable even if the wife has some income and in that regard the order has been up held. 11. In that background, a perusal of the present order and the documents relied on would indicate that the Court below in fact has referred to the documents sought to be produced by the husband to contend that the wife is employed in Yathiraj Associates. The contention being put forth on behalf of the wife is that the same is a created document which cannot be relied on. The contention being put forth on behalf of the wife is that the same is a created document which cannot be relied on. The Court below in fact has taken into consideration the said document and in the background of the documents relied on by the husband at Exs.P3, P4, P5 and P6 has arrived at the conclusion that, in the circumstance where the summons had been issued to Yathiraj Associates and the Court had received a reply that there was no employee by name Smt. Shreya @ Sridevi employed in the company, the contention as put forth that the wife is employed therein cannot be accepted. 12. In the nature of contentions as has been put forth and in the circumstance where at an earlier point this Court was of the view in the background of a similar contention that the wife is employed, the maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- as ordered in any event cannot be held as excessive. Keeping in view the nature of consideration presently made also, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- ordered as maintenance under any circumstance cannot be considered as excessive more particularly, keeping in view the status of the family and also the employment and nature of income of the husband. Therefore, if these aspects are kept in view and when this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- ordered as maintenance cannot be considered as excessive, the question is also whether the same would require any further enhancement. In that regard, the wife has sought to put forth the contention relating to the expenses including the lease rental. When it is seen that the wife is qualified with the Post-Graduation in Business Administration and in that light, if there is scope for employment which has also been taken into consideration in an earlier proceedings, at this juncture, the question of enhancement also cannot be acceded by this Court, if the wife does not make any attempt to secure employment. Hence, insofar as the order dated 04.08.2017 passed in M.C. No. 2026/2012 on I.A. Nos. 17 and 18, I do not find any error committed by the Court below, so as to call for interference. 13. In that view, both these petitions being devoid of merit stand disposed of. 14. Hence, insofar as the order dated 04.08.2017 passed in M.C. No. 2026/2012 on I.A. Nos. 17 and 18, I do not find any error committed by the Court below, so as to call for interference. 13. In that view, both these petitions being devoid of merit stand disposed of. 14. In view of the maintenance as ordered by the Court below being confirmed, in any event the husband is required to pay the amount which is a matter to be taken note by the Court below and as such, the petition in W.P. No. 40794/2017 and W.P. Nos. 42430 and 42431 of 2017 do not survive for further consideration. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. 15. In the circumstance, as noticed above and keeping in view the fact that the proceedings before the Court below has been pending since the year 2012, the Court below shall take all steps to dispose of the main matter as expeditiously as possible but within an outer limit of six months. The balance amount if any towards maintenance shall be paid within the outer limit of four weeks from this day. 16. In view of disposal of these petitions, I.A. No. 1/2017 in W.P. No. 41240/2017 and I.A. No. 1/2017 in W.P. No. 40794/2017 and W.P. Nos. 42430 and 42431 of 2017 do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.