High CourtsSingle Bench

S. Mohan vs Rishi Atreya

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 7 November 2014 · Citation: (2014) 11 KAR CK 0248

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 57156/2013 (GM-FC)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 684 words

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—In C. Misc. No. 494/2009 filed by the respondents, in the Court of I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, I.A. 2 filed under S. 125 Cr.P.C. to direct the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- p.m. having been allowed in part, by an Order dated 25.10.2013, by granting an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for maintenance of the minor child living with the mother, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner - husband has filed this writ petition.

2.

Marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the birth of the male child, 1st petitioner, is not in dispute. The assertion of the respondents, in I.A. 2, filed under S. 125 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner is working as ''Software Quality Analyst'' in M/s. INTEL Technology India Pvt. Ltd. was not denied in the counter filed to I.A. 2. Learned Judge of the Family Court being of the opinion, that the petitioner must be receiving a salary of not less than Rs. 25,000/- p.m. and taking into consideration the expenses of the child towards education and maintenance, directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at Rs. 5,000/- p.m.

3.

Smt. S. Susheela, learned advocate, contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance even for the 1st respondent, since the 2nd respondent wants to knock off the property of the petitioner''s family members and that the amount towards maintenance of the child will be misused by her for wrongful gain. She submitted that the impugned order, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, being arbitrary, calls for interference.

4.

Sri H.R. Manjunatha, learned advocate, on the other hand contended that the impugned order being neither perverse nor illegal, does not call for any interference.

5.

Perused the writ record and considered the rival contentions.

6.

There is no dispute that the petitioner is working as ''Software Quality Analyst'' in M/s. INTEL Technology India Pvt. Ltd. His salary certificate has not been produced either before the Family Court or in this petition. Family Court has probabilized the salary of the petitioner as not less than Rs. 25,000/- p.m. Neither in the petition, nor during the course of hearing, the monthly salary of the petitioner was made known. The probabilisation made by the Family Court was not repudiated.

7.

In view of the undisputed facts noticed supra and since the petitioner is employed and is drawing salary of not less than Rs. 25,000/- p.m. and taking into consideration that respondent No. 1 is the only child of the couple, the exorbitant fee structure in schools and the cost of living, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order entitling the minor child, interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m., pending disposal of the main petition. Since the impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, this petition should fail.

In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Two months'' time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the arrears.

Respondent No. 2 - mother, shall open an account in the name of the minor child - respondent No. 1 and furnish the particulars of the account to the petitioner, by filing a memo in the Family Court, Bengaluru.

The arrears of interim maintenance shall be deposited into the said account and the interim maintenance as and when falls due shall be deposited. The credit of the amount by the petitioner to the said account shall be due discharge of his liability towards the payment of interim maintenance pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Court below.

Smt. S. Susheela submitted that Rs. 1,25,000/- as ordered by this Court, pending disposal of this petition, was paid by way of a Demand Draft to respondent No. 1. Sri H.R. Manjunatha acknowledges the receipt of Demand Draft.

Since C. Misc. No. 494/2009 filed by the petitioner is pending in the Family Court at Bengaluru and as the parties are into litigation in other case/s, the Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to decide the case/s with expedition, by refusing unnecessary adjournment/s, if any, sought by either of the parties.

No costs.