KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dr. Vineet Kothari and Dr. H. B. Prabhakara Sastry, JJ.
Amit —Appellant
versus
Nupur —Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.100178 of 2015 (FC)
Decided on 1.6.2018
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 25—Permanent alimony and maintenance—Quantum of—Respondent-wife has not made any application in present petition for any permanent alimony—However, Section 25 of Act does not prevent her from making any such application—While granting decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of husband under Section 13(1) of Act, Court is not debarred from granting permanent alimony in favour of wife—On the date of present petition, appellant husband has been working as a Software Engineer at Pune whose salary was Rs.46,000/- per month—Awarding permanent alimony of sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of respondent-wife payable by appellant-husband would be just and reasonable. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Dr. H. B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.—The petition filed by the present appellant in the Court of Judge, Family Court Belagavi, at Belagavi (hence forth referred to as ‘Family Court’ for brevity), against the present respondent under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent came to be dismissed by the judgment of the Family Court dated 01.12.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The summary of the case of the appellant in the Family Court was that;
His marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 05.12.2003 at Belagavi as per the customs prevailing in their community. Both of them led marital life for a period of six years happily and out of their wedlock, they also got a son born to them. He took care of his wife in a better manner and also helped her in pursuing her post graduation course in law. Gradually his wife started visiting her parental ho use often and in one such situation, on 31.03.2009, all of a sudden the respondent-wife along with her child left to her parental home stating that she would spend vacation there, but did not return to her marital house thereafter. On the contrary, she filed a petition against him seeking maintenance in the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.488/2009, which came to be partly allowed directing the appellant herein to pay monthly maintenance to their son. The wife also filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class – III at Belagavi under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’ for brevity) in Crl.Misc.No.197/2009 by making several false allegations against him. Several attempts made by him as well the elders and well wishers in the family to bring her back to her marital home went in vain. This made him to institute a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act against her, which incidentally came to be dismissed. In this way, the cruelty and harassment meted to him by the respondent-wife did not stop. She further filed a suit for partition through her minor son in the Court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi in O.S.No.175/2009. However, the said suit came to be dismissed on 19.04.2012. Regarding a theft taken place in their house in the month of October-November, 2008, the wife also filed a police complaint in Kothrud police station, Pune on 16.11.2007, wherein the police filed a ‘B’ report in the matter. Further, alleging that neither his wife is willing to join him in her matrimonial home nor allowing him to meet their child, the petitioner in the Family Court has stated that the same constrained him to file a petition seeking dissolution of their marriage.
Upon service of notice, the respondent–wife put her appearance through their counsel. The matter was referred to the conciliation, which ended in vain. She filed her statement of objection, wherein except admitting her marital relationship with the petitioner/husband and they begetting a child out of their marriage wedlock, she denied all other petition averments, more particularly the allegation that for no valid reasons she has deserted her husband and has practiced cruelty upon him. On the contrary, she accused of her husband addicting to consumption of alcohol and quarreling with her on various silly matters. She also accused him of abusing her in front of their child and spoiling the family atmosphere. Contrary to the petition averment, the respondent–wife alleged that she was harassed and subjected to mental torture by the petitioner-husband. She also alleged that, apart from her husband being a chronic consumer of alcohol, he has also been in the company of another woman by name Miss. Nirmala Baban Chinchawade, resident of Pune and that he is spending huge amount on the said lady in order to keep her pleased. She stated that, both of them
R. Nagarathna and Others vs. DoddaChannaiah
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.