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
