PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTY Vs. NIRUPAMA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.12.2013 passed on I.A. No. 7 in M.C. No. 23/2009. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Due to certain marital discord, they have been litigating before the Court below in M.C. No. 23/2009. In the said proceedings, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for maintenance. At the first instance, the Court below had granted the interim maintenance at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The petitioner herein had assailed the said order before this Court. This Court after taking an overall view had reduced the maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The petitioner has presently filed I.A. No. 7 seeking withdrawal of the earlier order granting interim maintenance on the ground that the petitioner has presently secured the documents to indicate that the respondent has income of her own. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the said application. The petitioner, is therefore before this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order would refer to the earlier order dated 24.10.2011 passed on I.A. No. 1. The observation made therein for grant of maintenance that the petitioner herein had not produced any documents to indicate that the respondent had income is referred. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner has presently obtained copies of the RTC and the same have been produced before the Court below to indicate that the petitioner has acquired absolute right over the immovable properties under a partition and the properties presently stand in the name of the respondent. Hence, it is contended that the respondent has income from the said properties and therefore, interim maintenance granted by the Court earlier is required to be recalled.

(3.) In the light of the above, a perusal of the order passed by the Court below on I.A. No. 7 would indicate that the Court below infact has taken note of the said contentions and infact the evidence tendered by the parties on this issue has been referred to in detail. Having noticed these aspects of the matter, the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the application is to be rejected. In the background of the conclusion reached by the Court below and the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even in my considered opinion, the earlier order granting maintenance is not liable to be recalled. Infact at the first instance, the Court below after considering the rival contentions and on noticing that the petitioner had failed to prove the income of the respondent had come to such a conclusion. A circumstance which existed as on that date is not a changed circumstance so as to enable the petitioner to file an application seeking recall of the order. Even otherwise, merely because the properties stand in the name of the respondent, the same does not establish the fact with regard to whether there is any income from the same and what is the quantum of such income, to come to a conclusion whether the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- which has been granted as maintenance is required to be recalled.