Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 778
High Court of Karnataka
K.L. MANJUNATH & A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA, JJ.
Mrs. G. Kusuma & Others
Versus
B.H. Govindappa & Another
M.F.A. No. 10193 of 2011 (MC) C/W M.F.A. No. 9802 of 2011 (MC)
Decided On : 03-12-2013
For the Appearing Parties:V.N. Jagadeesh, R.B. Sadashivappa, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to ensure that a divorced Hindu wife receives maintenance enabling her to live in reasonable comfort and dignity, considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when living with her husband.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 25(2), Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs Parmvir Parma (2011) 13 SCC 112, U.Sree vs U.Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114 - The court discussed the principles of granting permanent alimony and maintenance to a divorced Hindu wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It considered the status of the parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of the husband, and other obligations. The court emphasized that the amount of maintenance should enable the wife to live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. It also highlighted the duty of the court to ensure that the wife lives with dignity and comfort, without facing penury.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved appeals against the order of granting permanent alimony and maintenance to the divorced wife and daughter. The wife sought higher maintenance, while the husband sought a reduction in the maintenance amount. The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court needed to be modified based on the change in circumstances of the parties. It assessed the income of the husband from salary and agricultural lands, as well as the wife's income from rent and tailoring. The court also considered the daughter's educational and living expenses. It concluded that the maintenance awarded to the wife and daughter needed to be increased.
Issues: The main issues were whether the quantum of maintenance and permanent alimony awarded by the Family Court needed modification and to what extent, and the order and reliefs the parties were entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in the cases of Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs Parmvir Parma and U.Sree vs U.Srinivas to determine the appropriate maintenance and permanent alimony for the divorced wife and daughter. It considered the income and expenses of both parties, as well as the daughter's educational and living needs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the wife's appeal in part and dismissed the husband's appeal. It enhanced the maintenance to Rs.3,000 per month for the daughter and Rs.4,000 per month for the wife, effective from the date of the judgment. It also awarded litigation expenses to the wife and daughter.
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.
1. Both these appeals are directed against the order of granting permanent alimony in favour of Smt. G.Kusuma and maintenance in favour of her daughter Kum. K.Deepa passed by the learned II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in MC No.1264/1999 dated 25.8.2011.
2. The appellants in MFA 10193/2011 are the petitioners in MC No.1264/1999 and appellant in connected matter MFA 9802/2011 is the respondent in MC No.1264/1999.
3. The learned Family Court Judge has directed the appellant in MFA 9802/2011 i.e., respondent in MC 1264/1999 to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- each per month to his divorced wife Kusuma and daughter Deepa as maintenance with effect from 1.1.2010 and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses pertaining to MC No.1264/1999. It is this order dated 25.8.2011, which is called in question in MFA 10193/2011 by Kusuma and her daughter Deepa on the ground that the permanent alimony and maintenance granted to her and her daughter respectively is quite inadequate. Whereas, the respondent Sri. Govindappa has filed connected matter i.e., MFA 9802/2011 challenging the same order of the Family Court on the ground that the quantum of maintenance awarded against him pertaining to his wife and daughter is on the higher side and hence, he has requested the Court to suitably reduce the maintenance/permanent alimony awarded by the Trial Court.
4. As such both these appeals are taken up for common discussion. We have secured the records of MC No.1264/1999 and we have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length.
5. Parties will be referred to as petitioners and respondent as per their status in the Trial Court in MC No.1264/1999.
6. Kusuma had filed a case in MC No.1264/1999 against her husband for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Her husband has filed a case against the appellant seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion in MC No.1861/2002. Kusuma had filed a suit against her husband in O.S.NO.1772/2000 also with a request to restrain him from permanently marrying any girl during the subsistence of her marriage. All these cases were clubbed and common judgment was passed by the Family Court on 1.4.2005 by dismissing M.C.No.1264/1999 and O.S.1772/2000. Whereas, M.C.No.1861/2002 filed by Govindappa came to be allowed. Therefore, decree of divorce was granted dissolving the marriage of the parties which was solemnized on 22.8.1996 at Birur, Kadur Taluk, Chickmagalore.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Judge, wife had filed a separate appeal in MFA 5928/2005 and 5929/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Both the appeals were dismissed by considered judgment passed on 5.11.2008 confirming the judgment of dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and original suit filed for permanent injunction and confirming decree of divorce passed. But the matter was remanded to the Family Court, Bangalore to consider the aspect of permanent alimony only in MC No.1264/1999.
8. Consequent upon the receipt of the entire records in MC No.1264/1999, further evidence was let in by Kusuma with regard to permanent alimony and maintenance granted to her and her daughter Deepa. Kusuma got examined herself as PW-1 and she has got marked 16 exhibits. Govindappa-respondent has examined himself as RW 1.
9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, the learned Family Court Judge has granted permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to Kusuma and Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to their daughter with effect from 1.1.2010. It is this order which is called in question in these appeals on various grounds by the parties.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for Kusuma and Deepa that the Trial Court has not properly analyzed the evidence in right perspective and has not taken into consideration the gross
