NAVEEN Vs. RASHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the husband and Respondent is his wife; they are an estranged couple. Petitioner had filed MC No.4564/2017 for dissolution of their marriage. Wherein Respondent's Application in IA No.10 filed u/s.24 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance of herself and the child having been favoured, learned Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru vide order dtd. 12/4/2023 has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay collectively a sum of Rs.75,000.00 per month as maintenance. The same is put in challenge in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposes the same.

(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 child is also admitted. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court below is on the higher side, is bit difficult to countenance inasmuch as, Petitioner is earning more than Rs.1,40,000.00 per month. Not even Objections are filed resisting the impugned order/ Sec. 24 Application. In law, Religion It is the duty of husband to look after his wife & 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 blood.

(3.) The apart, the impugned order of maintenance is a product of exercise of statutory discretion; for invoking writ remedy under Article 227 a strong case for the 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 jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction under vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd ., (2003) 3 SCC 524.