SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. R. C. Sunkulinge Gowda vs Smt. P. Saritha on 6 December, 2018

1
W.P. No.33055/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION NO.33055/2018 [GM-FC]

BETWEEN:

SRI. R.C. SUNKULINGE GOWDA,
S/O. LATE SRI CHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, MODEL HOUSE,
A.T. BLOCK, MAHADEVAPURA
MAIN ROAD, P T COLONY,
UDYAGIRI,
MYSURU-570 019. … PETITIONER

[BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE]

AND:

1. SMT. P. SARITHA,
W/O. SRI. R.C.SUNKULINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

2. KUM. R.S.HARIKA @ LAKSHMI,
D/O. SRI. R.C.SUNKULINGEGOWDA,
SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR,
REP. BY HER MOTHER
SMT. S.P. SARITHA. … RESPONDENTS

***

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU ON IA NO.3 IN
O.S. NO.39/2016 VIDE ANNX-E AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTIONS 18
2
W.P. No.33055/2018

AND 20 OF THE HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956
R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the

Order dated 27.04.2018 made in O.S. No.39/2016 on the file

of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in awarding

interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to plaintiff No.1

and Rs.5,000/- per month to plaintiff No.2 in total

Rs.13,000/- per month from the date of the suit till further

orders.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who were the

plaintiffs before the Family Court have filed O.S. No.39/2016

for permanent maintenance directing the petitioner herein

[defendant before the Family Court] to pay a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month to plaintiff No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per

month to plaintiff No.2 and creating charge over terminal

benefits payable to the defendant upon his retirement/

superannuation as Junior Engineer, Chamundeshwari

Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., (CESC), Mysuru
3
W.P. No.33055/2018

contending that plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife of the

defendant and the marriage between them was solemnized

on 28.02.2003 at “Sri Venkateshwara temple, Vontikoppal,

Mysuru as per Hindu rites and customs. Through the said

wedlock plaintiff No.2 was born and subsequently the

defendant neglected and refused to maintain the plaintiffs

who were unable to maintain themselves and deserted them.

The defendant who retired from service on 31.08.2016 is

intending to receive all the retirement benefits and not

making any provision for maintenance and livelihood of the

plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit

for maintenance.

3. The petitioner, who was the defendant before the

Family Court had denied the relationship between himself and

plaintiff No.1 but, admitted that plaintiff No.2 is his daughter

through plaintiff No.1 and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the

plaintiffs have filed I.A. No.III under Sections 18 and 20 of

the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 r/w. Section

151 of C.P.C., praying to direct the defendant to pay a sum
4
W.P. No.33055/2018

of Rs.20,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the

plaintiffs pending disposal of the suit, reiterating the

averments made in the plaint and the same was disputed by

the defendant in the written statement.

5. The Family Court considering both the pleadings

of the parties, by the impugned Order dated 27.04.2018

granted interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to

plaintiff No.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to plaintiff No.2-

daughter. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the

defendant.

6. I have heard Sri. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel

for the petitioner, who vehemently contended that the

impugned order passed by the Family Court awarding interim

maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to plaintiff No.1 and

Rs.5,000/- per month to plaintiff No.2 is erroneous and

contrary to the material on record. He further contended that

when the defendant had taken a specific contention in the

written statement that there exists no relationship as the

husband and wife between the defendant and plaintiff No.1,

the question of granting interim maintenance to the plaintiffs
5
W.P. No.33055/2018

would not arise. He would further contend that the defendant

has legally wedded husband of one Smt. Rathnamma and not

plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1. In the absence of any material

documents produced, granting any interim maintenance to

the plaintiffs is opposed to law and therefore, he sought to

allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff

No.1 is legally wedded wife of the defendant and plaintiff No.2

is the daughter of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant through

their wedlock. Though the relationship with plaintiff No.1 is

disputed by the defendant, he has not disputed the

relationship with plaintiff No.2. The Family Court on

considering the entire material on record arrived at a

conclusion that the defendant has admitted that plaintiff No.2

is his daughter. Plaintiff No.1 had produced her marriage

invitation card which depicts that her marriage was performed

with the defendant on 28.02.2003. She has also produced

application filed to obtain the Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.2,

wherein the name of the defendant is shown as her father.

The plaintiffs have also produced few photographs, wherein
6
W.P. No.33055/2018

plaintiff No.1 has dressed like a bride and the defendant is

blessing her by putting ‘Akshatha’ on her head. In another

photograph, plaintiff No.1 along with their daughter standing

near to the defendant. This shows that they lived like

husband and wife and from the said relationship they have

got a female child i.e., plaintiff No.2. Therefore, the Family

Court taking into consideration the provisions of Section

18(1)(2)(d) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,

1956 has proceeded to pass the impugned order awarding

maintenance.

8. The defendant has not disputed the fact that

plaintiff No.2 was born to him through plaintiff No.1 but, he

denied that plaintiff No.1 is his wife. It is a matter of trial.

Prima-facie the material produced before the court clearly

depicts that plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife of the

defendant and plaintiff No.2 was born through their wedlock.

Therefore, the trial Court taking into consideration the income

of the defendant has proceeded to pass the impugned order.

It is not in dispute that the defendant was working as a Junior

Engineer in CESC, Nivedita Unit/Branch, Kuvempu Nagara,

Mysuru as on the date of the application and was getting a
7
W.P. No.33055/2018

salary of Rs.1,07,000/- per month and also having income of

Rs.50,000/- per month from the immovable properties.

Plaintiff No.1 has no source of income to maintain herself and

her daughter-plaintiff No.2. Taking into consideration the

averments and circumstances, the Family court is justified in

awarding Rs.8,000/- per month to plaintiff No.1 and

Rs.5,000/- per month to plaintiff No.2 as interim maintenance

and the same is in accordance with law. The

defendant/petitioner has not made out any ground to

interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the power

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Ksm*/nms
Ct-jlr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation