Harini @ Ashwini vs M. Gangadhara

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking modification of the order dated 13.04.2011 passed in M.C. No. 3057/2008 as at Annexure-A to the petition. By the said order, the Court below has granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner herein. The respondent herein has filed the petition in M.C. No. 3057/2008 seeking dissolution of marriage. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed an application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Court below on taking note of the rival contentions has disposed of the application by its order dated 13 04.2011 directing payment of Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner contends that the amount awarded is too meager and is therefore before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the circumstance which the parties were placed, though the petitioner is aware that the respondent herein is carrying on real estate business and also is gaining income from the properties owned by him no documentary evidence could be produced in that regard. It is contended that the respondent herein instead of placing before the Court below the actual income had taken an extreme contention that he is not employed and he is dependant on his father. It is therefore contended that in such situation when the fact that the petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent is not in dispute and considering that the expenses would be incurred for the basic necessities, the amount as awarded would not be sufficient and accordingly, the same is to be enhanced.

The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand apart from seeking to sustain the order passed by the Court below would contend that the petitioner herself has income and therefore the question of consideration of the application itself would not arise. It is also contended that the petitioner herein had not proved that the respondent had income of more than Rs. 30,000/- as contended therein and therefore the Court below taking note of all these aspects of the matter has granted the maintenance as indicated in the order and since only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been granted, the respondent did not choose to challenge the same and in any event the enhancement, of the maintenance would not arise.

In the light of the contentions, I have perused the order passed by the Court below and the petition papers. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below would disclose that the Court below in fact has referred to a suit in O.S. No. 4116/2004 being litigated between the family members of the respondent herein. In that regard, reference is also made to the share that the respondent would be entitled to therein. The contention put forth by the respondent herein that the petitioner is employed in Nokia Care Centre at Indiranagar was also referred to. In the absence of any proof thereto, the Court below has not accepted the said contention putforth by the respondent. Having taken note of that aspect, the Court below was also of the view that the petitioner herein had not established that the respondent herein has income as contended in the application and therefore taking note of these aspects, only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month has been awarded.

In that background, a perusal of the averments made in the application and the objection as well as the additional objections would indicate that the petitioner as well as the respondent except making certain averments in the application and the objection statement, no documentary evidence has been relied either to establish the income of the respondent or the respondent has proved the income of the petitioner. In that view, certainly the Court below was justified in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner herein is entitled to maintenance. The question however is with regard to the quantum as awarded. Even if the contention of the respondent that he is unemployed and he is dependant on his father is taken into consideration, I am of the opinion that such contention could not have been putforth by the respondent, more particularly in a circumstance when he has married the petitioner with the knowledge that some expenses would be incurred for the family and to maintain the petitioner. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the case of either of the parties and taking into consideration some minimum expenses that is to be provided to the petitioner, it is directed that the respondent shall pay the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of this order till the main petition is disposed of before the Court below. Further, the Court below shall take note of the fact that the main petition is pending from 2008 and make all endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible by fixing its own time frame for disposal.

With the said modification, the petition stands disposed of.