- 1 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3873 OF 2020 (FC) BETWEEN: SMT. NAMEETHA NAYAK W/O SRI. MANJUNATH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.115, SAI CHARITHA GREEN OAK, PHASE-II, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU,OPP: HOMEBUZZ, BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. DHANYASHREE PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE ) AND: SRI. MANJUNATH GOPALKRISHNA NAYAK, S/O GOPALKRISHNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.12, SHANTINIKETHAN, 2ND CROSS, AMRUTHNAGAR, A SECTOR, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DINESH NEELKANT GOANKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT R/W SEC.28 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 07.08.2019, PASSED IN MC NO.5078/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. - 2 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019, passed by the VI Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, (for short, `Family Court’), in M.C.No.5078/2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as per their rankings before the Family Court. 3. The appellant/petitioner filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying to grant the decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between petitioner and respondent on 27.04.2008 and also prayed to award permanent alimony against the respondent/husband. The Family Court by the impugned judgment, granted the relief of divorce, but - 3 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 rejected the claim of maintenance, however, directed the respondent/husband to pay 50% of educational expenses of specially abled child of both petitioner and respondent by name Dhyaan Nayak, till he attains the age of majority. The relief of injunction was also rejected. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejecting her claim of permanent alimony, preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 27.04.2008 at Honna Raka Public Hall, Vandige, Ankola, Uttarakannada District, in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. After marriage, both petitioner, as well as respondent resided together and led their marital life. From the said marital life, both of them were blessed with a son by name Dhyaan Nayak, who is a `specially abled child'. During the stay of the petitioner with the respondent at Bengaluru, he was torturing, harassing and ill-treating her with an intention to extract property and money from the - 4 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 petitioner. Due to intolerable cruelty, she was forced to reside separately. With these reasons, she prayed to grant the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty and harassment. 6. Respondent denied the averments of the petition and contended that the said averments are false. Just to obtain a divorce, the petitioner has falsely averred in the petition. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The Family Court recorded the evidence of both side. Petitioner examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 18 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-18. Respondent examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked 16 documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-16. 8. The Family Court heard the arguments of both side and framed following three points for consideration : "1. Whether the petitioner proves that she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for permanent alimony of Rs.30,000/- per month to the child by name Dhyaan Nayak till the completion of his education? - 5 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 3. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property or creating any third party interest in respect of the suit schedule property? 4. What order ?" By appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, the Family Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 partly in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative and granted the relief of divorce. 9. Fact of marriage and relationship between the parties, as well as birth of son from the said relationship are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to discuss them in detail. 10. Both petitioner as well as respondent have not challenged the grant of relief of divorce and respondent has not challenged the orders passed by the Family Court, directing him to bear 50% of educational expenses of son of both the parties. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. The only point to be considered in this appeal is, whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent alimony? - 6 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 11. In this appeal, both the parties have filed their assets and liabilities statement. According to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has been drawing a salary of Rs.1,80,000/- by working in Samsung R & D, Bengaluru as General Manager. In the cross-examination of RW-1, he admits that he was earning Rs.3 to 4 lakhs per annum by running a business. Along with assets and liabilities statement, he has also produced the income tax returns. The said income tax returns of the year 2020 shows that he was earning gross income Rs.2,62,686/- p.a. The income tax returns of the Assessment Year 2023-24 depicts that his gross total income was Rs.5,64,130/-. According to the statement annexed to the said income tax returns, his gross income from the business was Rs.7,33,309/-. These facts were not disputed. 12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant on instructions submitted that appellant is not praying for any permanent alimony for herself, however, to maintain specially abled child, she had to spend lot of money; The said boy is unable to - 7 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 attend the regular school, but, has to go to a school meant for specially abled children; The petitioner has to engage a servant to look after the said child when she has been attending the office; She has been spending substantial amount towards medical expenses of the said child. The Family Court has not awarded any amount in this regard. Therefore, reasonable amount may be awarded for maintenance of the said child towards medical and incidental expenses, as well as educational expenses. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Family Court has already passed a decree, directing the respondent to pay 50% of the educational expenses of the child. The petitioner has filed petition before the Magistrate Court under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. The respondent has been paying Rs.8,000/- as maintenance amount per month as per the orders passed in M.C.No.5078/2013. 14. Undisputedly appellant filed an application before the Family Court to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month to meet medical expenses and - 8 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 maintenance of their child. That was partly allowed. That order was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No.53654/2014 (GM-FC). This Court by order dated 12.04.2016, directed the respondent to pay Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of application filed before the Family Court in M.C.No.5078/2013. The Family Court while passing the impugned judgment, did not consider it and no order was passed about payment of maintenance of child of the parties. 15. During the pendency of this appeal, as per the order dated 28.08.2023, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month till disposal of the petition by the Family Court. The petition filed under the D.V.Act is pending consideration before the Magistrate Court and he is ready to bear 50% of the medical expenses of the child and prays to pass suitable orders. 16. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner has produced some of the receipts for purchase of medicines for the treatment of her son. The said documents are not marked before the Family Court. While - 9 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 recording the evidence, she has stated about the expenses for maintenance and medical expenses of their son. The Family Court has already ordered and directed the respondent/husband to pay 50% of the educational expenses. 17. Looking at the medical records and considering the undisputed fact that the said child is suffering from certain health issues and is a specially abled child, it is evident that, until he recovers, parents have to bear medical, educational and maintenance expenses of the said child. Undisputedly, the child is in the custody of the appellant. Looking at the financial status of both parties and facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance and medical expenses of the said child. 18. Undisputedly, respondent had paid the said amount from the date of application, as ordered by this Court in W.P.No.53654/2014 until disposal of M.C.No.5078/2013. The said amount is enhanced in this appeal. Hence, respondent is liable to pay maintenance of - 10 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 Rs.10,000/- per month as stated above, from the date of filing of this appeal till the said child attains age of majority or able to maintain himself, whichever is earlier. Apart from that, as already directed by the Family Court, the respondent shall bear 50% of the educational expenses of the said child. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court modified. 19. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019, passed by the VI Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.5078/2013, is modified; (iii) The respondent/husband shall pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of their son by name `Dhyaan Nayak', from the date of filing of this appeal till the said boy attains the age of majority or the said boy is able to maintain himself, whichever is later. (iv) The respondent/husband is directed to deposit the said amount each month before - 11 - MFA No. 3873 of 2020 5th of succeeding month, to the bank account of the petitioner (wife). (v) The petitioner shall furnish the details of her bank account to transfer the said amount each month. (vi) The remaining portion of the decree passed by the Family Court is not disturbed. (vii) Draw decree accordingly. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with records to the concerned Family Court without delay. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/