IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

RPFC NO.130/2013

BETWEEN:

M S BHASKAR S/O M.K.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB, VISHVESHWARA NAGAR, MYSORE-570008.

... PETITIONER

(By Sri: ROOPESHA B, ADV.)

AND:

A MALA W/O M.S.BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.534, 6TH CROSS, CHELUAMBA AGRAHARA, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570001.

... RESPONDENT

RPFC FILED U/SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:20.07.2012 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.430/2008 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 125 OF Cr.P.C.

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The present petition is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 20.7.2012 passed by the Court of Judge, Family Court, Mysore in C.Mis.430/2008.

2. The respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She chose to file a petition under Section 125 of CPC seeking maintenance. The said petition was objected to by the petitioner herein by filing detailed objections. After holding a thorough enquiry by examining the petitioner-husband as RW-1 and respondent-wife as PW-1 and marking as many as 5 documents on behalf of the wife and 1 document on behalf of the husband, the learned Judge has granted a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of petition during her life time. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

4. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the relationship of the husband and wife. Elaborate reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge as to how the petitioner-husband has neglected to maintain his wife. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the respondent-wife has no independent source of income and petitioner herein has substantial income and apart from that the materials placed on record disclose that he is living in the residence of his father and that his father has several immovable properties.

5. Taking into consideration the status of the parties and income that the petitioner-husband is getting, the learned Judge has assessed the monthly maintenance on the basis of broad preponderance of probabilities. In a case like this, the scope to interfere is very limited. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Trial Court. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed. The order dated 20.7.2012 passed by the Court of Judge, Family Court, Mysore in C.Mis.430/2008 is confirmed.

There is no order as to costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

DM