B.H. SUSHEELA Vs. M.M. YOGENDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner, who is the Mother, is a lecturer and the respondent, who is the Father, is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, started legal battle in the name of the minor child and have approached this Court.

(2.) The petitioner, is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed on I.A.No.13 in M.C.No.3556/ 2010 on the file of V Additional Family Court at Bangalore, awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month allowing the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the wife, in part from the date of application pending disposal of the petition.

(3.) The respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1950, (for short 'the Act') seeking divorce, raising various contentions. The same is opposed by the petitioner -wife by filing objections to the said petition. During the pendency of the main petition an application came to be filed by the present petitioner for interim maintenance for herself and her daughter along with litigation expenses. The Family Court vide order dated 07.11.2013 allowed the application and directed the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards maintenance to his daughter. The said order has reached finality. Again on 18.08.2015 the petitioner - wife filed application under Section 24 of the Act, seeking to direct the respondent to pay enhanced interim maintenance to the daughter and maintenance to the petitioner. She sought interim maintenance to the daughter at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- contending that when the interim maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month on 07.11.2013, the daughter was minor. She secured 89% in SSLC in the year 2015 and joined science stream and it is very difficult for her to take care of the education expenses and she has further contended that she has to spend for maintenance of the house for repair and has taken loan for the flat purchased and has to pay an EMI of Rs.18,973/- every month. The respondent is promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and his salary also has reached peak level and as on the date of application he was drawing a sum of Rs.71,000/- per month, contending that the interim maintenance granted earlier at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to daughter is not sufficient etc. The said application was opposed by the husband by filing objections, denying the averments made in the application.