MAHANTESH GOUDAPPA WALI Vs. LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marriage of the parties was solemnised on 17-3-2009 and a male child was born on 12-8-2010. On account of lack of compatibility between the spouses, a complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent in Ankalgi Police Station in Crime No. 41 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 406 and 498 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered on 12-6-2012. M.C. No. 55 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Gokak, to pass a decree of divorce and for dissolution of marriage. Police having conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and C.C. No. 1195 of 2012 was registered on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak. Respondent having filed I.A. No. 1, in M.C. No. 55 of 2012, despite objections filed by petitioners, application having been allowed in part, entitling respondent and the child, pendente lite maintenance at Rs. 5,000/- each vide order dated 7-10-2013, this writ petition was filed to quash the said order.

(2.) Petitioner is serving as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. Pursuant to the order passed on 6-1-2015, petitioner filed memo and produced his pay slip for the months of September 2013 and November and December 2014. Monthly pay bill of December 2014 shows the gross pay as Rs. 25,711/- and there being Government deductions of Rs. 2,326/- and other deductions of Rs. 1,750/-, net amount drawn was Rs. 21,635/-.

(3.) Indisputedly, petitioner has to make provision for maintaining his parents, who are aged and not keeping good health. The Court below without taking into consideration the actual salary of the petitioner and being of the opinion that he is doing dignified work and drawing hand-sum salary and is leading a comfortable life has directed the payment of interim maintenance at Rs. 5,000/- each, to the respondent and minor child. Since, credible evidence has been produced with regard to the salary of the petitioner, noticed supra, the sum which was directed to be paid as per the impugned order by the Family Court, is excessive and unreasonable.