PADMAVATHI Vs. C LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the orders made by the Family Court, Mysore, on I. A. No. IV in M. C. No. 364/1998 dated 31-1-2001, rejecting the wife's application for grant of interim maintenance and partly allowing the claim made for interim maintenance of the children.

(2.) THE relationship of the parties is not in dispute. First petitioner and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the wife and children of the respondent, who is a practising Advocate with 25 years of rich experience in the profession. First petitioner's marriage took place some time in the year 1982 with the respondent and they lived together as wife and husband for nearly 18 long years. Now their relationship is strained, therefore, first petitioner has filed a petition under S. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('act' for short) before the Family Court at Mysore in M. C. No. 364/1998, inter alia seeking restitution of conjugal rights. After service of notice on the respondent, she has filed an application under S. 24 of the Act, claiming interim maintenance to herself and her children aged about 15 years, 13 years and 11 years respectively. In the affidavit filed along with her application, she has stated that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage took place on 26-5-1962 at Kanakapura, Bangalore District, and they have three children and the first child is suffering from epilepsy and needs regular treatment and all of them are studying in schools at Mysore. For the reasons stated in detail in the affidavit, she states that she is now living separately because of the harassment of the respondent's relatives and the respondent. She has further stated that she does not have any independent income and on the other hand, her husband, who is a leading senior lawyer with rich experience of 25 years in the profession is earning not less than Rs. 15,000/- per month and apart from his professional income, he also owns joint family property both at Mysore and Bangalore and gets sufficient income from that property also.

(3.) AS usual, respondent using all his ingenuity as a lawyer, has filed his objections resisting the relief claimed in the application. In that, firstly contends that children are not parties to the application and therefore, they are not entitled for interim maintenance. Secondly, since the applicant has deserted him without any rhyme or reason, applicant is not entitled for interim maintenance. Lastly, his professional income has dwindled, since he was arrested by the police authorities on a false complaint lodged by the applicant and then he goes to the extent of saying he has no professional income or any income from the joint family properties to maintain his wife and children.