Smt. Punuru Sumana, Kumar Reddy and Master Pranav, Minor, Rep. by Natural Guardian Mother, Smt. Punuru Sumana, 1st petitioner herein vs Sri. P.V. Niranjan Kumar Reddy

B.S. Patil

In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.02.2011 passed by the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore in C.Misc. No. 358/2008 granting interim maintenance in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the petitioners who are the wife and son respectively of the respondent.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the sum of Rs. 5.000/- each awarded as monthly maintenance is grossly inadequate and is neither reasonable nor a fair sum of money required for the maintenance of the petitioners.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent is an income tax assessee and owns several agricultural lands yielding considerable income. Without taking note of the actual income derived by the respondent, the learned of to Family Court has come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each If awarded as monthly maintenance to the petitioners would be just and reasonable.

Upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Court below has taken note of the income tax returns submitted by the respondent for the year 2008-09 in which the income of the respondent from agricultural source was shown as Rs. 30,000/- per year In 2008. As regards the income from other source, the respondent was assessed for income and the annual income declared by him was Rs. 1,13,238/- . The Court below has taken note of the fact that the respondent-husband did own certain agricultural lands. On consideration of the total income that the respondent earned, the Court below has come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to both the petitioners deserves to be awarded as monthly maintenance. Accordingly, both the petitioners are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- for their maintenance pending consideration of the petition filed u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I do not find any apparent illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the family Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The Court below has taken note of the total income of the respondent-husband while recording its findings.

However, since this is only an order passed on the interim application, it will be always open to the petitioners to lead necessary evidence and place before the Court the actual income that the respondent derives and establish their claim. The Court below is directed to consider the matter and lake steps to dispose of the same as early as possible.

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of declining to interferc with the impugned order.