C. Suresh vs Eshwari

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—Parties are estranged spouses. Out of the wedlock, they have two children. Out of them, one died and a female child is now surviving. Petitioner has instituted M.C. No. 64/2010 against the respondent, in the Court of Civil Judge at K.G.F., to pass an order for restitution of conjugal rights. The case having been contested on the ground indicating the reason on account of which she is unwilling to join the matrimonial home of the petitioner, an application was filed under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 28.08.2010, to pass an order for payment of interim alimony. The objection filed to the said application having been not accepted and the Court below having directed on 20.03.2012, the payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and the litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-, this writ petition was filed.

Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the writ record.

Sri Abhinav R., learned advocate for the petitioner contended that M.C. No. 64/2010 having been filed under S. 9 of the Act and there being no justifiable reason for the respondent to keep away from the matrimonial home of the petitioner and in view of the sum which the petitioner is earning by being a temporary driver in the KSRTC, the Court below has acted perversely in directing the payment of pendente lite alimony that too when the surviving child is being taken care of by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is need to interfere with the impugned order.

Sri C. Pattabiraman, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the circumstances which has made the respondent to stay away from the petitioner having been narrated in the counter filed to the main case and also in the I.A. filed seeking issue of a direction to pay interim alimony and as the respondent has no means to survive, the Court below is justified in directing the payment of interim maintenance to the respondent. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the finding recorded by the Court below in the impugned order.

There is no dispute with regard to the solemnization of marriage and the parties living away from each other. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent has any income for her survival. Admittedly, petitioner is employed as a driver in KSRTC and is earning gross salary of Rs. 9,940/- p.m. No doubt, there are certain deductions which are not compulsory. In the circumstances, the sum which has been directed to be paid to the applicant/respondent, vide order dated 20.03.2012 by the Court below, is neither irrational nor illegal, to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Keeping in view the fact that the respondent has no means for her survival, a minimum sum of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. is required to eke out her living, though there is moral support by her father. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. However, there is need for the Trial Court to decide the case with expedition.

In the circumstances, writ petition is rejected. The petition having been instituted on 01.07.2010 and the pleadings being complete, the case be decided with expedition and refusing unnecessary adjournment/s, if any, sought by either of the parties. The case be decided within a period of six months from the next hearing date of the case.