Court emphasizes need for maintenance amount for specially abled child, adjusting financial responsibilities between parents in divorce proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019, passed by the VI Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, (for short, `Family Court’), in M.C.No.5078/2013.

2. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as per their rankings before the Family Court.

3. The appellant/petitioner filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, praying to grant the decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between petitioner and respondent on 27.04.2008 and also prayed to award permanent alimony against the respondent/husband. The Family Court by the impugned judgment, granted the relief of divorce, but rejected the claim of maintenance, however, directed the respondent/husband to pay 50% of educational expenses of specially abled child of both petitioner and respondent by name Dhyaan Nayak, till he attains the age of majority. The relief of injunction was also rejected. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejecting her claim of permanent alimony, preferred this appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 27.04.2008 at Honna Raka Public Hall, Vandige, Ankola, Uttarakannada District, in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. After marriage, both petitioner, as well as respondent resided together and led their marital life. From the said marital life, both of them were blessed with a son by name Dhyaan Nayak, who is a `specially abled child'. During the stay of the petitioner with the respondent at Bengaluru, he was torturing, harassing and ill-treating her with an intention to extract property and money from the petitioner. Due to intolerable cruelty, she was forced to reside separately. With these reasons, she prayed to grant the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty and harassment.

6. Respondent denied the averments of the petition and contended that the said averments are false. Just to obtain a divorce, the petitioner has falsely averred in the petition. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The Family Court recorded the evidence of both side. Petitioner examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 18 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-18. Respondent examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked 16 documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-16.

8. The Family Court heard the arguments of both side and framed following three points for consideration :

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for permanent alimony of Rs.30,000/- per month to the child by name Dhyaan Nayak till the completion of his education?

3. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property or creating any third party interest in respect of the suit schedule property?

4. What order ?"

By appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, the Family Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 partly in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative and granted the relief of divorce. 9. Fact of marriage and relationship between the parties, as well as birth of son from the said relationship are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to discuss them in detail.

10. Both petitioner as well as respondent have not challenged the grant of relief of divorce and respondent has not challenged the orders passed by the Family Court, directing him to