Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 713 (KAR)

B Radha v. Mallesh Kanna K S

2023-05-26

ALOK ARADHE, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

body2023
JUDGMENT : Mr Alok Aradhe, J. - Smt. S.Radna Pyari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on behalf of Dr. S.V.Joga Rao and Sri. V.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the wife being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Family Court, Mysuru, by which petition filed by the husband under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and the marriage performed between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that this appeal was filed beyond a period of limitation prescribed under the Family Courts Act. It is also not in dispute that after the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016, the respondent who is employed as an Assistant Grade-3 in Centra! Institute of Plastic Engineering Technology has remarried. 4. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, learned counsel for the appellant submits that she confines her claim in this appeal only to grant of alimony. It is further pointed out that a Bench of this Court by an interim order dated 18.06.2021 had directed the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/to the appellant. It is also submitted that the aforesaid order be affirmed while disposing of this appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the pay slip of the respondent for the month of January 2021 and has submitted that the gross salary of the respondent is Rs.57,584/-. However, the respondent is getting net pay of Rs.35,692/-. It is further contended that the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is on the higher side and the same suitably be reduced, as the respondent is required to maintain his second wife as well as mother. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is not in dispute that the appellant namely the first wife of the respondent has a statutory right to claim maintenance from the husband and the respondent being the husband is under an obligation to maintain his wife. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is not in dispute that the appellant namely the first wife of the respondent has a statutory right to claim maintenance from the husband and the respondent being the husband is under an obligation to maintain his wife. However, while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the Court is required to ascertain the status of the party as well as the source of income of the earning spouse as well as member dependent on him. In the instant case, the salary certificate for the month of January 2021 indicates that husband is getting a gross salary of Rs.57,584/-. Therefore, taking into account the status of the parties as well as the fact that the salary of the husband is subject to revision from time to time, in the considered opinion of this Court, a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance has to be granted to the appellant, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be on the higher side. 7. Therefore, it is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 passed in M.C.No.9/2014 is modified. In the result, appeal is disposed of.