AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the order dated 23.05.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, in M.C. No. 25/2009 thereby dismissing the interlocutory application filed seeking interim maintenance u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent. The matrimonial case is filed by the 1st respondent-husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking grant of interim maintenance for herself and her son and as also towards litigation expenses. This application was resisted by the husband. The Court below has dismissed the application. Aggrieved, by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the impugned order. It is clear from the pleadings that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 06.05.1990. One son by name Shreyas is born out of the wed lock. He has since attained majority. He is studying Engineering Course.
It was contended by the petitioner that though she was working in the postal department at Manipal Head Office, she was drawing only a sum of Rs.11,355/- towards her salary which was totally inadequate for her to meet the expenses required for herself and her son. She further asserted that the respondent being a leading lawyer having good practice was earning more than Rs. 2.00 lakhs per month and that without any justification he had deserted the petitioner and her son. She also contended that towards house hold expenses, she was incurring a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and towards educational expenses of the son, she needed Rs.1.9,900/- apart from the admission fee and annual college fee and expenses towards his uniform and clothes. This application was strongly resisted contending inter alia that the petitioner herein was earning more than Rs. 20.000/- per month and that the respondent herein has made arrangement for the educational expenses of his son by depositing substantial sums of money in fixed deposits both in the name of the son and also in the name of his wife.
The Court below has considered the respective pleadings and has recorded a prima facie finding holding that petitioner was drawing salary of more than Rs. 20,000/- per month and the same was sufficient for her maintenance Insofar as the expenses required for the education of the son, the Court below has found that his son Shreyas has attained majority and the respondent has Invested substantial amount: in National Saving Certificate and other fixed deposits in the name of the son and provision is also made for meeting the expenses required for his education.
Learned counsel for the respondent invites the attention of the Court to the documents produced on behalf of the respondent-husband before the Court below showing the details of the amount deposited in the name of his son.
The Court below has taken note of the fact that the son having attained majority, the petitioner cannot claim maintenance amount towards maintaining the major son. The approach adopted by the Court below cannot be characterised as illegal let alone one suffering from apparent illegality warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner having sufficient income to support herself has failed to show that the salary of about Rs. 20,000/- per month derived by her was not sufficient for her to maintain herself. It is also clear from the records that the petitioner is living in the matrimonial house asserting that she is staying therein in her own right. Be that as it: may, the fact remains that she is staying in the matrimonial house and is drawing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Court below cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is unnecessary to go into the need of the son and his educational expenses at this stage as he has already attained majority and he will have his remedies elsewhere. Petition is accordingly dismissed.