NAGESH H.E. Vs. LAKSHMI S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the husband and Respondent is the wife; they are an estranged couple. Petitioner has filed M.C.No.13/2016 seeking a decree for dissolution of their marriage on certain grounds. Respondent-wife's Application u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 having been favoured, learned Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Holenarasipura vide order dtd. 1/8/2022 has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay Rs.10,000.00 per month towards maintenance of herself & children. The same is put in challenge in this writ jurisdiction.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the marital relationship with the Respondent is not disputed and the legitimacy of the children is also admitted. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that his client does not have sufficient means to pay maintenance is difficult to countenance. It is the duty in law, in religion and in reason that the father has to make payment for the maintenance of children. No material is produced to show that the Respondent-wife is gainfully employed or that she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty lies on the shoulders of petitioner. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the amount is too much on the higher side, does not merit acceptance in these costly days when bread is costlier than the blood.

(3.) The above apart, the impugned order of maintenance is a product of exercise of statutory discretion; for invoking writ remedy under Article 227 , a strong case of violation of rules of reason & justice has to be made out. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper for substantiating the said contention. Therefore, all aspects having been duly considered, this Court opines that the impugned order does not merit a deeper examination in the supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd ., (2003) 3 SCC 524.