Karnataka HC orders attachment of husband’s property for non-payment of maintenance

The Karnataka High Court has ordered attachment of a husband’s property for non-payment of maintenance owed to his wife and their disabled son. A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde passed the order while allowing the appeal filed by the wife and her 23-year-old son.

The couple was married for about 25 years and in 2002, the wife walked away from her husband accusing him of cruelty. He demanded maintenance for himself and his son. The case was adjudicated and they were awarded Rs 2,000 and Rs 1,000 per month respectively as maintenance.
The duo filed applications seeking increase in the maintenance to Rs 5,000 citing increase in cost of living after a decade. On September 5, 2018, the family court partially accepted the petition and directed the husbands to pay alimony of Rs 3,000 each.
Both the wife and son filed appeals before the High Court and argued that the amount awarded was less and also that the husband had not paid the earlier ordered amount. It was further claimed that the husband had sold some immovable property and hence he could pay Rs 5,000 per month.
The bench said that the right of the wife to claim maintenance of the disabled son has nothing to do with the divorce petition filed by the wife. The court directed the husband to pay Rs 5,000 as maintenance from April 12, 2012, the day he filed the suit.
“It has been brought to the notice of the court that the first respondent (husband) is in arrears and has not discharged the obligation as prescribed by the family court. Under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, arrears of maintenance may be a charge on the property. Since the first defendant has not been diligent in discharging his obligation under the decree, this Court is of the view that a charge should be made on the property of the first defendant to secure payment of maintenance to the plaintiff. The charge on the property should be recorded in all property records existing in the name of the first defendant.
The bench said that the husband’s house property of 1,276 square feet located at Uttarahalli, Bengaluru stands attached and if any other property details are submitted by the wife, she will have to bear the charge of maintenance ordered by the bench. A direction has also been issued to the jurisdictional sub-registrar to make entry of maintenance charges in the encumbrance certificate relating to Uttarahalli property. Similarly, BBMP has been directed to make necessary entries in respect of the said property.