KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR vs DIVYA K.C. - 2024-01-16

O R D E R

The order impugned in this proceeding has been passed by the High Court on 04.05.2023 in a Writ Petition brought by the petitioner in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner-husband had challenged the legality of an order passed by the Family Court in a Guardianship proceeding in which the question of visitation right was involved.

When the matter is called on for hearing today, we have been apprised that the Family Court has subsequently passed an order on the question of visitation right of the petitioner(father) and in view of that order, the petitioner is not pressing that question in this proceeding. The petitioner’s grievance, however, is over a direction of the High Court for payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. This direction is contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order, which we quote below:-

“5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-wife that no maintenance is being paid by the petitioner-husband. It is also contended that previously, the petitioner was paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance.

6. In the light of the above, pending consideration of any application that may be filed seeking for interim maintenance, the petitioner-husband shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the respondent- wife till the disposal of the said petition.”

Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no application for grant of maintenance by the respondent-wife and to that extent the aforesaid order ought to be set aside.

Mr. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, however, submits that the aforesaid direction was issued primarily to preserve subsisting arrangement, which was brought to the notice of High Court. This submission is, however, not accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband. There has, however, been certain further developments on the question of grant of maintenance. It appears that the respondent- wife had instituted a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent-wife had asked for interim monetary relief of Rs.1,25,000/- as maintenance in that proceeding and the forum under the 2005 Act, upon factoring in the said direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- had in substance added a further sum of Rs.25,000/- as part of the monetary relief. Thus, though the order of the High Court does not specifically relate to any application for maintenance and seems to have been passed on the basis that this was a subsisting arrangement, the forum under the 2005 Act has considered the said factor and enhanced it in substance in its order.

In these circumstances, we do not think at present, the direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- can be said to be without any basis, having regard to the submission made by the respondent- wife as regards the direction made by the forum under the 2005 Act. In the event, we are to stay that part of the order of the High Court. The order of the forum under the 2005 Act would become operable and the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- would be the monthly interim maintenance. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order of the forum under the 2005 Act proceeding on the basis that the awarded maintenance is Rs.1,25,000/- per month.

The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR