<p class="bodytext">The Karnataka high court has ordered attachment of the properties of the husband over nonpayment of maintenance awarded to his wife and their differently abled son. A division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed this order while allowing the appeal filed by the wife and her 23-year-old son.</p>.<p>The couple had married around 25 years ago and in 2002, the wife moved away from the husband alleging cruelty. She sought maintenance for her and also to her son. The suit was decreed and Rs 2,000 and Rs 1,000 per month as maintenance were awarded to them respectively. </p>.<p>Both filed applications a decade later seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs 5,000 each, citing escalation in cost of living. On September 5, 2018, the family court partly allowed the petition and directed the husband to pay Rs 3,000 each as maintenance.</p>.Karnataka HC upholds tax evasion case against bookies at Bangalore Turf Club.<p class="bodytext">Both the wife and the son moved an appeal before the high court contending that the amount awarded was low and also that the husband had not paid the amounts ordered earlier. It was further claimed that the husband had sold some of the immovable properties and hence can pay Rs 5,000 per month.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The bench observed that the wife and the differently abled son’s right to claim maintenance has nothing to do with the divorce petition filed by the wife. The court directed the husband to pay Rs 5,000 each as maintenance from April 12, 2012, the date when she filed the suit.</p>.<p class="bodytext"> “It is brought to the notice of the court that the 1st defendant (husband) is in arrears and has not discharged the liability fastened by the family court. Under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882, the arrears of maintenance can be a charge on the property. Since the 1st defendant is not diligent in discharging his liability under the decree, this court is of the view that a charge must be created over the property of the 1st defendant to secure the payment of maintenance to the plaintiffs. The charge created over the property shall have to be recorded in all the property records standing in the name of the 1st defendant.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">The bench has said the 1,276 sqft house property situated at Uttarahalli, Bengaluru belonging to the husband stands attached and that if any other property details are furnished by the wife they shall carry the charge of maintenance ordered by the bench. A direction has also been issued to the jurisdictional Sub-registrar to make an entry in the Encumbrance Certificate relating to the Uttarahalli property to the charge of maintenance. Similarly, the BBMP has been directed to make necessary entries regarding the said property.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Karnataka high court has ordered attachment of the properties of the husband over nonpayment of maintenance awarded to his wife and their differently abled son. A division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed this order while allowing the appeal filed by the wife and her 23-year-old son.</p>.<p>The couple had married around 25 years ago and in 2002, the wife moved away from the husband alleging cruelty. She sought maintenance for her and also to her son. The suit was decreed and Rs 2,000 and Rs 1,000 per month as maintenance were awarded to them respectively. </p>.<p>Both filed applications a decade later seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs 5,000 each, citing escalation in cost of living. On September 5, 2018, the family court partly allowed the petition and directed the husband to pay Rs 3,000 each as maintenance.</p>.Karnataka HC upholds tax evasion case against bookies at Bangalore Turf Club.<p class="bodytext">Both the wife and the son moved an appeal before the high court contending that the amount awarded was low and also that the husband had not paid the amounts ordered earlier. It was further claimed that the husband had sold some of the immovable properties and hence can pay Rs 5,000 per month.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The bench observed that the wife and the differently abled son’s right to claim maintenance has nothing to do with the divorce petition filed by the wife. The court directed the husband to pay Rs 5,000 each as maintenance from April 12, 2012, the date when she filed the suit.</p>.<p class="bodytext"> “It is brought to the notice of the court that the 1st defendant (husband) is in arrears and has not discharged the liability fastened by the family court. Under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882, the arrears of maintenance can be a charge on the property. Since the 1st defendant is not diligent in discharging his liability under the decree, this court is of the view that a charge must be created over the property of the 1st defendant to secure the payment of maintenance to the plaintiffs. The charge created over the property shall have to be recorded in all the property records standing in the name of the 1st defendant.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">The bench has said the 1,276 sqft house property situated at Uttarahalli, Bengaluru belonging to the husband stands attached and that if any other property details are furnished by the wife they shall carry the charge of maintenance ordered by the bench. A direction has also been issued to the jurisdictional Sub-registrar to make an entry in the Encumbrance Certificate relating to the Uttarahalli property to the charge of maintenance. Similarly, the BBMP has been directed to make necessary entries regarding the said property.</p>