IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 1" my OF sEPTEM3ER%«2ao%é%y%%f'%A
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTECE Mo;-IAN swgr4m~§:A%6%o:J:;;4k2 7
wan PETITION No;5a2%4/éeofis J %
Between: V» .' V'
Dr. Amnachal M Rao _
S/0 late Badanidiyur Mohan Rae 5'
Aged about 53 years _
Occ : Medical Practitioner; ,
Flat No.2, mot N£).23j§1\(IiI1a3pi1;_V "
Swastik Par}{,;'Ch?;Inbuii_ _
Mumbai--400 U'.?_'1'.l._ ' ' . ..Petitioner
{By IVE/s. 'A@__iv._,)
AND :
Dr. Supriya Reid
_. _D/0 Prrqf. Krishna Bfiat Nflavar
W/0 F'fl'l.iI1§1'C.'.h&1A. M Rad """ "
VAge'd« --.9.b01_,1t 43. years
OQC" :_ l_\V4't3'd.Vi_ t':a_1A Pfaciifioner
R/a. Dwarakag. . Post Box No. 19
' Brahn;1avar;5'/E 213. ..Respondent
VT ~ .. «, [By Sri 'Ariga, Adv. ,]
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 22'? of the
T - _ C0I1Stit"uti0n of Endia praying to set aside the order dated
-3-
21.1.2008 passed by the Add}. Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.) Udupi in
M.C.No.34/2002 Vide Ar1neXure~»C.
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this da_3}',«..pthe
Court made the following :
ORDER
The order of the Court below graiitirig
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month :.o,’jc;né–.féspofideagt
called in question in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner is the Their
marriage was so1amnised–..hCrri _The relationship
between the partiespis not H’oii}et£,gp;,’V”the differences
have arisen betviieen;.*the. partie’s. 4’i”.etitio:1e’r is the doctor by
profession, Hisivsp-3cia1isati,or1.. is “C Radiology and Sonography.
He is working_ as in Lions Charitable Hospital,
_VpChemb1§1r,V Mumbai-, is: getting the salary of Rs. 18,000 /- per
thewsaid hospital. According to the respondent,
€Vu€3′.1_V”K..’c.Llcf.€VVI”:”V’O,ffiQé_.>’h01,1I”S, petitioner is practising medical
profession ..__1’r1 -DT’r.Bhushan’s Clinic at Ghatkopar, Mumbai, by
getting up”~–his own Sonography apparatus. Apart from the
4″pro.fessiona1 income, the petitioner is also getting money from
V”
_ 3 _
other sources such as investments etc., Hence, the respondent
prayed for maintenance of Rs.30,000/~ per month.
3. The records also reveal that the respondentawife.is.Va
doctor, practising in Ayurvedic Medicine. .
marriage, she was working in Anand .NuI’si,ngl”2Home.,
Brahmavar, and was getting a salary inf ‘ih;’o.nti;.v;_*l
Subsequently, she was working.__ in Vlldanardlianifi/iatefnity
Hospital, Kasaragod, from 1998 to’°2~o,oo, According to her, as
of now, she has not got anyljcb and,pthle1*–e_for”e.,, she is not having
any independent income of
‘Ihe,’lVtrial’ eyaluationlllof the material on record,
awarded maintenance’,_1o_t “RsA;’8,000/– per month to the wife,
respondent herein’fro,n~1 23. ‘1’1″.’2o02.
_F1ihe.jre–sVpondent is now residing at Udupi. She is
Iivding’~l’with’ihe»r_parents. whereas, the petitioner is a practising
V dd doctor,”–living’ Mumbai. Even assuming that the respondent
it ‘i-sgphdrzotgworking as of now, it cannot be said that she is without
llanypllavocation. The respondent is graduate in Ayurvedic
Medicine. Admittedly, she was working in some hospitals and
it
-4-
drawing a salary of Rs.1,500/– per month. Thus, it is clear
that she is capable of earning some amount of money. Taking
into consideration this fact, the Court below has
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month.
5. The petitioner is a qualified:;’doctoi’.«.V ‘”.Ifie’1
as a Radiologist. The records. on h4and’–..elearly”.l_reveal
petitioner himseif admits thatfillhe has ineome of
Rs.21,000/- per month, floweyer; vr.:iioV’V”i’s_a1a1y’certificate is
produced by him. May be the spend some
amount for his regiilar conveyanceyAingfiomljay, but that does
not mean “from paying maintenance to the
respondent. This lhasialsolto take into consideration the
possibility of’ in private organisation after
_ finishing his work inltions Charitable Hospital, Bombay. The
v”V.*_getitio_.ner Fh.owe’ver has denied that he has set up his own
indepe”ndAentF<..xvpgéyate clinic by establishing Sonography
instrun':ent__;" -Eiaving regard to the totality of the facts and
H " circumstances, in my considered opinion, interest of justice will
be the maintenance awarded by the Court below is
M