Abhijit vs Mansi

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 05.03.2009 and a girl child was born on 20.08.2010. Petitioner was employed in the Merchant Navy at the time of marriage. The respondent left the marital home in July 2011 and served a notice on the petitioner, to come back and join, to lead marital life. A reply was got sent by the petitioner, on 24.12.2011, that, if she intends to lead a marital life, she has to improve her behavior.

M.C. No. 19/2012 was filed in the Family Court, Belgaum, on 09.01.2012, to order restitution of conjugal rights. I.A. No. III was filed to produce salary certificate and I.A. No. IV was filed to direct surrender of passport. An application having been fled on 14.02.2012, to direct the payment of pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses and the same having been allowed in part, directing the petitioner to pay to his wife and child, interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- per month respectively, apart from litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-, this writ petition was filed on 12.08.2013.

On 11.09.2013, a conditional interim order was passed. The impugned order was stayed by subjecting the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. On 13.01.2015, noticing that the petitioner has not paid the interim maintenance in terms of the order dated 11.09.2013, it was directed that Rs. 5,000/- per month shall be paid with effect from the date I.A. No. II was filed in MC No. 19/2012. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been paid from the date I.A. No. 2 was filed in MC No. 19/2012.

By not accepting the claim of the petitioner that he is working as an Office Assistant and drawing Rs. 6,000/- per month and being of the opinion that he has not disclosed the true income, interim maintenance, as above, was directed to be paid, by allowing I.A. No. II in part.

The Family Court, while directing the payment of interim maintenance, has not taken into consideration the relevant aspects i.e., paying capacity of the petitioner and the capacity or otherwise of the respondent to maintain herself and the child. No doubt, the petitioner ought to have disclosed his true income. The Family Court ought to have kept in view the ratio of law in the case of Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, (particularly paragraphs 9 and 10), the amount as directed in the impugned order is not based on the relevant aspects. Learned counsel on both sides submitted that, instead of remanding the matter to decide I.A. No. III afresh, the main matter itself, may be directed to be decided in a time bound manner and that both sides would extend co-operation for early decision. Keeping in view the nature of litigation there is a need to decide the main case early.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to continue to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, to the respondent and the child. Impugned order stands modified accordingly.

The Family Court shall decide M.C. No. 19/2012 with expedition and within a period of three months from today.

The petitioner shall render ready co-operation to decide the matter within the period allowed. Any unnecessary adjournment/s by the petitioner shall be refused.

In case, a need were to arise to determine the permanent alimony, the same shall be determined by the Family Court, based on the evidence that may be brought on record by the parties, uninfluenced by the interim arrangement made as above. No costs.

Consequently, I.A. No. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration.