BEEREGOWDA Vs. PUSHPAVATHI M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MARRIAGE of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 08.06.1989. The marriage having consummated, the parties have three children. Petitioner has filed, on 29.10.2009, M.C. No. 392/2009 in the Family Court at Mysore, against the respondent, under S. 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to pass a decree of divorce and dissolve the marriage solemnized on 08.06.1989. Said petition has been contested by the respondent by filing statement of objections. Respondent filed an application under S. 24 of the Act on. 25.05.2010, to award interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 6,000/ -. Petitioner, though filed statement of objections, the Trial Court, on 10.03.2011, allowed the said I.A. in part and directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/ -. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) SRI P. Mahesha, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's salary being Rs. 12,307/ - per month, he having obtained a housing loan, there is deduction towards the loan liability and the take home salary of the petitioner being only Rs. 4,813/ - p.m., the Trial Court is unjustified in directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/ - to the respondent.

(3.) PETITIONER is a Government servant. Salary certificate produced by Sri P. Mahesha, as per the direction of this Court, shows that the petitioner's gross salary is approximately Rs. 20,000/ - per month. The only compulsory deduction is Rs. 200/ - towards professional tax. No doubt, there is housing loan liability and other deductions. At the same time, the respondent has to maintain herself and her three children. In the circumstances, the Trial Court is justified in directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. However, the litigation expenses claimed, as can be seen from Annexure -R3 being Rs. 6,000/ - only, the Trial Court is unjustified in directing payment of Rs. 10,000/ - towards litigation expenses. Therefore, I have no hesitation in upholding the order passed to the extent of payment of monthly maintenance amount. The impugned order to that extent does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In view of the above, the impugned order to the extent or" payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - p.m., stands upheld. However, the impugned order directing payment of Rs. 10,000/ - towards litigation expenses is modified. The litigation expenses payable is determined at Rs. 5,000/ -. Petitioner had the benefit of the interim order dated 25.08.2011. In pursuance thereof, he has paid to the respondent interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ - p.m. He is granted 12 months' time to pay the balance amount, in equal monthly instalments i.e., along with interim maintenance payable at Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. M.C. No. 392/2009 has remained pending for more than 4 years and the interim alimony ordered by the Trial Court is continuing. Keeping in view the provisions made in the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005, the Trial Court should decide M.C. No. 392/2009 with utmost expedition and within a period of one year from the next hearing date.