1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014

B E F O R E

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

WRIT PETITION NO.50391/2013 c/w WRIT PETITION NO.53109/2013 (GM-FC)

In W.P.No.50391/2013

BETWEEN:

Mr. Meghashyam N., Aged about 34 years, S/o. Shri Naganarasimha T.A., R/at 160, 1 st Main, IV Cross, Ramanjaneyanagar, Chikkallasandra, Bangalore – 560 061. …PETITIONER (By Smt. Shobha S. Bhavikatti, Adv.)

AND:

Mrs. Sanjeevani Walvekar, Aged about 31 years, W/o. Mr. Meghashyam N., R/at No.40/A, 19 “D” Main road, 10 th Cross, 1 st Block, , Bangalore – 560 010. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri Suraj Patil, Adv.)

2

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of , praying to quash the order dated 08.10.2013 on I.A.No.4 in M.C.No.4500/2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore vide Annexure-E.

In W.P.No.53109/2013

BETWEEN:

Smt. Sanjeevani Walvekar, W/o. Meghashyam N., Aged about 31 years, R/at No.108, Saurabh Nilaya, 1st Main, Kasturinagar, NGEF (East) Bangalore – 560 043. …PETITIONER

(By Sri Suraj Patil, Adv.)

AND:

Sri Meghashyam N., S/o. T.A. Naganarasimha, Aged about 33 years, R/at 160, 1 st Main, IV Cross, Ramanjaneyanagar, Chikkallasandra, Bangalore – 560 061. …RESPONDENT

(By Smt. Shobha S. Bhavikatti, Adv.)

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent to pay `35,000/- as monthly maintenance and `25,000/- towards litigation expenses by modifying the impugned order dated 08.10.2013 in I.A.4/2012 passed by the 3

learned Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.4500/2012 vide Annexure-E.

These petitions on coming for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The parties are estranged couple. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2008. Petitioner – husband, filed

M.C.No.4500/2012, for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), in the

Family Court, Bengaluru. The case has been contested by the respondent – wife, by filing counter. I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent, under Section 24 of the Act, despite objections filed by the petitioner, having been allowed in part, on 08.10.2013, vide order as at Annexure-E and the petitioner having been directed to pay interim maintenance at `25,000/- p.m. from the date I.A.No.4 was filed, feeling aggrieved, petitioner – husband filed W.P.No.50391/2013 and respondent – wife filed W.P.No.53109/2013, for enhancement.

4

2. Heard Smt. Shobha S. Bhavikatti, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri Suraj Patil, learned advocate for the respondent and perused the writ record.

3. Section 24 of the Act, makes a provision for

maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding.

The said provision enables the spouse, who has no

independent income sufficient for her or his support, to

apply to the Court, to direct the opposite party to pay the

monthly maintenance, regard being had to the applicant’s

own income, if any and the income of the opposite party.

The section confers discretion on the Court, in the matter

of passing order for payment of interim maintenance, by

having due regard to the income of the parties.

4. While passing the order, the Court should take

into consideration relevant factors like social status, the

background from which the parties come from and

economical dependence of the applicant, etc.,

5

5. Smt. Shobha S. Bhavikatti, did not dispute the fact that the respondent, who was employed earlier, is now without any employment and also the fact that she has no income sufficient for her maintenance. According to

I.A.No.4 vide Annexure-C, the petitioner is employed and earning `1,00,000/- p.m. The said assertion has remained undisputed.

6. Since the respondent – wife is unemployed and has no income for her maintenance, the Family Court is

justified in ordering the payment of interim maintenance.

7. Smt. Shobha S. Bhavikatti, contended that

`25,000/- p.m., awarded as interim maintenance is highly

excessive. She submitted that the petitioner has the

obligation to maintain his parents and other obligation to

discharge. She further contended that the respondent,

who is highly qualified, is idling her time, only to make the

petitioner suffer by paying the exorbitant alimony. The

submission was countered by Sri Suraj Patil, by contending

that respondent has no employment and her efforts to get 6

a job has not materialised. He submitted that the day she gets sufficient income for her maintenance, she would not claim and receive the alimony from the petitioner.

8. Concededly, petitioner’s father is in receipt of pension and has residence for their living. Thus, the petitioner’s parents are not dependent upon the petitioner for their maintenance. The petitioner has not disclosed the other essential obligations, if any, required to be discharged out of his income.

9. There can be no set formula for fixing the amount of interim maintenance. The claim has to be considered depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, by keeping in view the status of the spouses, their respective needs, the capacity of the person who has to pay, having regard to his/her reasonable expenses for his/her own maintenance and those, he/she is obliged under the law and statutory deductions, if any. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such that she can live in reasonable comfort considering her 7

status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband.

10. Keeping in view the undisputed fact that the petitioner has salary income of about `1,30,000/- p.m., the sum which the Family Court has awarded to the respondent is not exorbitant. The respondent should live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with the petitioner.

11. In view of the above discussion, the Family

Court has not committed any error or illegality in directing the payment of maintenance at the rate of `25,000/- p.m.

by the petitioner to the respondent/applicant i.e., from the

date I.A.No.4 was filed. The point for consideration is

whether any enhancement is called for ?

12. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the

income of the petitioner, the salary income of the

petitioner having gone up from `1,00,000/- to `1,30,000/-

p.m., the respondent – applicant is entitled to be awarded, 8

towards interim maintenance, `30,000/- p.m., till she gets into employment and earns income sufficient for her maintenance or there is any change of circumstances.

In view of the above, it is ordered as follows:

W.P.No.50391/2013 being devoid of merit is rejected. W.P.No.53109/2013 is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified entitling the respondent – applicant, interim alimony at the rate of `30,000/- p.m., from 01.11.2014.

Thus, the respondent – applicant would be entitled to

`30,000/- p.m. instead of `25,000/- p.m. from

01.11.2014.

It is open to the husband – petitioner to seek modification of the order, in case, there is any change in the circumstances, which would disentitle the wife – respondent, to claim and receive monthly maintenance as above or in case, monthly maintenance is required to be reduced on account of the employment etc. of the applicant – wife. 9

The Family Court is directed to decide M.C.

No.4500/2012 with expedition and within a period of six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it, without granting any unnecessary adjournment(s), to either of the parties.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

sac*