Case: Chandrashekar Vs. Swapnil and Another

1. Leave granted. 2. The issue in the present appeals pertains to the grant of maintenance to the first respondent, who is the minor son of the appellant and the second respondent. The marriage between the appellant and the second respondent took place on 10 May 1999. The appellant sought a decree of divorce in 2010. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot passed a decree for divorce on 16 June 2015. The first respondent, who was born on 25 March 2004 is residing with his mother, the second respondent. The Family Court by its order dated 8 September 2017 directed the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs 20,000 per month to the first respondent. The High Court, by its judgment dated 13 December 2019 dismissed RPFC No 100145/2017 instituted by the appellant under the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act 1984 and declined to entertain the revision. 3. On 29 July 2020, while entertaining the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court passed the following order: 1. Delay condoned. 2. The petitioner is employed as a First Division Assistant in the Department of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of Karnataka. Mr Chinmay Deshpande appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that at present the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs 45,000 and that after deductions, he is in receipt of a net salary between Rs 20,000 to Rs 25,000. Hence, it has been submitted that the direction to pay maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month to his son would be impossible of compliance. 3. In order to test the bona fides of the petitioner, we direct that the petitioner shall presently pay over to his son towards maintenance, an amount of Rs 10,000 per month computed with effect from 2 March 2016 (the date of the filing of the application for maintenance). The aforesaid amount shall be paid over on or before 10 September 2020. 4. Mr Deshpande states that until date the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs 6.80 lakhs towards maintenance. We direct that the amount which has been paid over shall be adjusted against the amount which is due and payable in terms of the above directions. 5. The petitioner shall also file his salary slips as on 31 March 2016, 31 March 2017, 31 March 2018, 31 March 2019 and for the period between January 2020 to July 2020 on affidavit before this Court. He shall also explain the nature of deductions which are being made from his salary. 6. List the Special Leave Petition after eight weeks. 4. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the appellant has filed IA No 96711/2020 making a disclosure of his salary slips for the months of March 2016, March 2017, March 2018, March 2019 and for the period between January and July 2020. The recent salary slips of the appellant indicate that he has a gross salary of Rs 45,529. The deductions from the gross salary are on account of (i) Professional tax (ii) Employees Group Insurance Scheme (iii) LIC policy (iv) General Provident Fund (v) Karnataka Government Insurance Department deduction and (vi) House Rent Allowance. In addition, it appears that the appellant had obtained a loan for which recoveries at the rate of Rs 9325 per month are being made from his salary towards a total outstanding of Rs 3.26 lakhs. Net of deductions, the salary which is payable to the appellant works out to Rs 20,979 per month. 5. It is not in dispute that inclusive of the amounts which have been paid over in pursuance of the order dated 29 July 2020 passed by this Court, the appellant has paid a total sum of Rs 6.64 lakhs towards maintenance to the first respondent. 6. The principal submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel, Mr Chinmay Deshpande is that the appellant is employed as a First Division Assistant in the Department of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of Karnataka; his salary being what has been referred to above, the payment of an amount of Rs 20,000 by way of maintenance would leave the appellant with virtually no resources to meet the maintenance requirements of his family which presently consists of his spouse and two minor children. After the divorce between the appellant and the second respondent, the second respondent got married again and has two children. 7. Mr Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has on the other hand submitted that the appellant cannot be excused from the obligation to maintain the first respondent, his minor son and considering the educational and other needs of the child, an amount of Rs 20,000 was fixed towards maintenance. At the same time, the learned counsel submitted that having regard to the salary slips which have been placed on record, the Court may take an appropriate view of the matter. Mr Agarwal also submitted that after the child completes his High School Board examinations, it would be appropriate if the appellant continues to maintain the first respondent for the period which would normally be undertaken to complete the first degree course thereafter. Learned Counsel urged that if such an arrangement is made by this Court, it would obviate a further round of litigation which would involve the parties in unnecessary delay and expense. 8. We are inclined to modify the order which has been passed by the Family Court and which has been affirmed by the High Court. This is for the reason that the appellant being an employee of the State Government, his salary slips for the relevant period which are available on the record can safely be relied upon as a true indicator of the income which he earns from his employment with the State. The deductions which are being suffered by the appellant from his salary are largely in the realm of statutory and compulsory deductions which are made from the monthly income. Apart from the statutory deductions, some amount is being deducted towards a loan outstanding which Mr Deshpande submits was obtained to meet the expenses incurred on the ailment of the mother of the appellant. The appellant has shown his bona fides by paying an amount of Rs 6.64 lakhs. He has made a disclosure of his salary slips. The net income being in the range indicated above, payment of Rs 20,000 per month to the first respondent will leave no resources to maintain his other two children and family. Hence, some scaling down is required. But an arrangement to provide maintenance to the first respondent until he completes the first degree course after High School will be necessary so that the first respondent becomes self-supporting and can live in dignity. Both the learned counsel have been fair and their approach to a human issue needs to be noticed and appreciated. They have truly performed the role of officers of the court. . 9. The Family Court had directed the appellant to provide maintenance to the first Respondent till he attains the age of majority. We are conscious of the fact that we are extending the period for maintenance in the terms indicated above. However, in issuing this direction, we have borne in mind two significant aspects: firstly, the maintenance payable by the appellant has been reduced from rupees twenty thousand per month to rupees ten thousand per month; and secondly the past arrears have been capped at the amount of Rs 6.64 lacs which has already been paid. Hence, exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution we are inclined to pass an order in the interest of justice to envisage that maintenance at the reduced rate of rupees ten thousand per month will be provided by the appellant to the first Respondent until he completes his first degree course following upon the high-school board examinations.

Decision:
1[ds]8. We are inclined to modify the order which has been passed by the Family Court and which has been affirmed by the High Court. This is for the reason that the appellant being an employee of the State Government, his salary slips for the relevant period which are available on the record can safely be relied upon as a true indicator of the income which he earns from his employment with the State. The deductions which are being suffered by the appellant from his salary are largely in the realm of statutory and compulsory deductions which are made from the monthly income. Apart from the statutory deductions, some amount is being deducted towards a loan outstanding which Mr Deshpande submits was obtained to meet the expenses incurred on the ailment of the mother of the appellant. The appellant has shown his bona fides by paying an amount of Rs 6.64 lakhs. He has made a disclosure of his salary slips. The net income being in the range indicated above, payment of Rs 20,000 per month to the first respondent will leave no resources to maintain his other two children and family. Hence, some scaling down is required. But an arrangement to provide maintenance to the first respondent until he completes the first degree course after High School will be necessary so that the first respondent becomes self-supporting and can live in dignity. Both the learned counsel have been fair and their approach to a human issue needs to be noticed and appreciated. They have truly performed the role of officers of the court. .9. The Family Court had directed the appellant to provide maintenance to the first Respondent till he attains the age of majority. We are conscious of the fact that we are extending the period for maintenance in the terms indicated above. However, in issuing this direction, we have borne in mind two significant aspects: firstly, the maintenance payable by the appellant has been reduced from rupees twenty thousand per month to rupees ten thousand per month; and secondly the past arrears have been capped at the amount of Rs 6.64 lacs which has already been paid. Hence, exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution we are inclined to pass an order in the interest of justice to envisage that maintenance at the reduced rate of rupees ten thousand per month will be provided by the appellant to the first Respondent until he completes his first degree course following upon the high-school board examinations.