ORDER
Petitioner is the husband and Respondent is his wife; they are an estranged couple. Petitioner had filed MC No.4564/2017 for dissolution of their marriage. Wherein Respondent's Application in IA No.10 filed u/s.24 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance of herself and the child having been favoured, learned Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru vide order dated 12.04.2023 has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay collectively a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month as maintenance. The same is put in challenge in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposes the same.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the marital relationship with the Respondent is not disputed and the legitimacy of the child is also admitted. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
- 3 -
maintenance awarded by the Family Court below is on the higher side, is bit difficult to countenance inasmuch as, Petitioner is earning more than Rs.1,40,000/- per month. Not even Objections are filed resisting the impugned order/Section 24 Application. In law, Religion It is the duty of husband to look after his wife & children. No material is produced to show that the Respondent-wife is gainfully employed or that she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty lies on the shoulders of Petitioner. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the amount is too much on the higher side, does not merit acceptance in these costly days when bread is costlier than blood.
3. The apart, the impugned order of maintenance is a product of exercise of statutory discretion; for invoking writ remedy under Article 227 a strong case for the violation of rules of reason & justice has to be made out. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper for substantiating the said contention. Therefore, all aspects
- 4 -
having been duly considered, this Court opines that the impugned order does not merit a deeper examination in the jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction under vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524.
4. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded vide RANJESH
v. NEHA, (2021) 2 SCC 324. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner is more than justified in submitting that in the light of decision of this Court in W.P.No.14769/2023 (GM-FC) between SRI. N.RAJEEV vs. SMT. C.DEEPA, disposed off on 26.07.2023
- 5 -
to seek early disposal of the subject matrimonial cause within a period of seven months.
The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the Respondent-wife and to the learned judge of the Court below through Speed Post, immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41