Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUJATHA, J.
Smt. Manjula S. @ Manjamma W/o Kotresh – Petitioner
Versus
Kotresh S/o Late Basappa Karilingapla – Respondent
R.P.F.C. No. 38 of 2015
Decided On : 10-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Sri. P. Rudrappa.
For the Respondent: Sri. Mahesh R. Uppin.
The maintenance amount must be just and proper to provide the basic necessities of life, considering the spouse's source of income, conduct of the parties, and attending circumstances.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - The court enhanced the monthly maintenance amount from Rs.1,500 to Rs.2,500 based on the spouse's source of income, conduct of the parties, and attending circumstances, particularly the status of the spouse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a legally wedded wife, sought maintenance from the respondent due to ill-treatment and neglect, as the respondent had contracted a second marriage. The family court initially awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500, which the petitioner sought to enhance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the maintenance amount must be just and proper to provide the basic necessities of life and considered the respondent's ownership of about 6 acres of land. Consequently, the court enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.2,500.
Issues: The main issue was whether the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded by the family court was just and reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The maintenance amount has to be awarded considering the source of income of the spouse, conduct of the parties, and other attending circumstances, particularly the status of the spouse. It is awarded to protect the spouse from vagrancy and destitution when unable to maintain themselves.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the monthly maintenance was enhanced to Rs.2,500, to be paid by the respondent from the date of the petition.
1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the Family Court at Davanagere in Crl. Misc. No. 188/2014.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 12.05.2003 at Karegudihalli as per the Hindu rites and customs. It transpires that due to the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent, the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and started living at her parental house. The respondent appears to have contracted the second marriage by neglecting the petitioner. There are allegations and counter allegations made between the parties. But the petitioner approached the family court at Davanagere seeking for the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent. The family court after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, directing the respondent to pay from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking enhancement of maintenance.
3. The learned counsel Sri. Rudrappa P. appearing for the petitioner would contend that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the family court is too meager. The respondent owns 7 acres of land and he is earning sufficient income. Despite the same, neglecting the petitioner, he has contracted second marriage. The petitioner being unemployed and unable to maintain herself, filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the family court at Davanagere against the respondent seeking monthly maintenance. The family court ought to have considered the sufficient means of income of the respondent while fixing the monthly maintenance amount. The monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- is inadequate to the maintenance of the petitioner in the wake of escalation of prices and the present cost of living. Accordingly, he seeks for enhancement of the monthly maintenance awarded by the family court.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri. Mahesh R. Uppin appearing for the respondent supporting the impugned judgment and order, would contend that the respondent is an agriculturist and the lands owned by the respondent are joint family properties. No independent source of income of the respondent is established by the petitioner to seek for enhancement of monthly maintenance. Considering the factual matrix of the case, the family court awarded just and reasonable maintenance, which cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration before this Court is, whether the quantum of monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the family court from the date of petition, directing the respondent to make the payment is just and reasonable?
7. It is well settled legal position that the maintenance amount has to be awarded keeping in mind the source of income of the spouse, conduct of the parties and other attending circumstances, particularly the status of the spouse. The monthly maintenance amount is awarded to protect the wife from vagrancy and destitution, when she is unable to maintain herself. The maintenance amount must be just and proper at least to provide the basic necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter. It is an indisputable fact that the respondent is owning about 6 acres of land as could be evidenced from Ex.P2. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be reasonable to enhance the monthly maintenance to Rs.2,500/- as against Rs.1,500/- awarded by the family court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Hence, the petition is allowed enhancing the monthly maintenance to Rs.2,500/-. The respondent shall pay monthly maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner from the date of the petition. The petition is allowed
