Papaiah Reddy @ Ashok Reddy vs Amaravathi & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.486/2016 dated 19.03.2020, wherein granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.1, who is the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.2, who is the daughter, as maintenance.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that though the Trial Court has taken note of the declaration made by this petitioner i.e., cash and also the declaration with regard to the site and house at Kacharakanahalli worth about Rs.60 Lakhs, the same is subjected for partition. The Trial Court failed to take note of the said fact into consideration. Apart from that, the learned counsel also would submit that the respondent herein is also having the rental income and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that no material has been placed before the Trial Court except the oral evidence of R.W.1, who has been examined and nothing has been placed before the Court with regard to subjecting the site for partition and also the respondent is having any rental income. The learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court having taken note of his own declaration passed an order and the maintenance awarded is also not ex-orbitant. An amount of Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner and an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the second petitioner, who is aged about 12 years has been awarded, which includes the medical expenses of the second petitioner also. Hence, there are no grounds.

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the petitioners before the Trial Court produced the documents – Exs.P1 to P8 viz., Marriage Invitation, Marriage Photo, Copy of Legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, affidavit, certified copy of Partition Deed and Copy of Rectification Deed, respectively. The respondent/petitioner herein has not produced any documents before the Court as contended in this Petition. Apart from that, the Trial Court also considered both oral and documentary evidence. In paragraph No.11, discussed with regard to quantum of maintenance and capability of the respondent to pay separate maintenance. In paragraph No.12, taken note of the affidavit – Ex.P6, wherein, the respondent declared the cash of Rs.30,000/-and another cash of Rs.1,40,000/-. Apart from that, he declared himself as owner of Mahindra Scorpio worth about Rs.4 Lakhs. He also declared that he possessed a site and a house at Kacharakanahalli worth about Rs.60 Lakhs and another site and house at Nagareshwara Nagenahalli worth about Rs.10 lakhs. He has also declared that he is getting an income of Rs.20,000/- from other properties.

Having taken note of all these materials into consideration, the Court has to take note of the cost of living and also the educational expenses of the second petitioner. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the amount awarded by the Trial Court is not ex-orbitant as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the petition, IAs., if any, does not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.