Karnataka High Court orders charge on man's property to secure maintenance for wife, disabled son

The Karnataka High Court recently ordered the creation of a charge on a man's immovable property to secure maintenance payments to his wife and disabled son [Uma and Anr. v Banashankar and Ors.]..Justices Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that since the man was not diligent with discharging his liability, a charge over the property was necessary to secure maintenance payments."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," stated the order passed last month..In 2006, the woman and her son were granted monthly maintenance of ₹2,000 and ₹1,000 respectively. Years later, they moved a family court seeking the enhancement of maintenance owing to the increased cost of living. The family court ordered enhanced maintenance at ₹3,000 per month against a claim of ₹5,000. Aggrieved, the woman and her son moved the High Court for relief. .They informed the Court that the maintenance was their only source of income and that the defendant (estranged husband) had also not cleared earlier dues.They also mentioned an immovable property owned by the defendant and contended that he was capable of paying ₹5,000 each as maintenance to them. .The Court noted that the first maintenance decree was passed in 2006 and that the cost of living has increased substantially since then.Further, it noted that although the defendant's son was now a major, he was differently-abled.The Court remarked that although the appellants did not produce material to show that the defendant held property, the family court ought not to have partly rejected the claim. The High Court proceeded to take note of material showing that the defendant held an immovable property and determined that the plaintiffs (mother and son) were entitled to ₹5,000 each as monthly maintenance..The High Court further noted that the family court had not granted maintenance from the date of the suit. It found no justification for the same and ordered that the maintenance should be paid from the date on which the suit for enhancement of maintenance was filed.Since the defendant had not cleared pending maintenance payments, the Court also decided to order the creation of a charge over the defendant's property to secure the maintenance payments.In this regard, the Court pointed out that under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, the arrears of maintenance can be a charge on the property."The property standing in the name of the 1st defendant described in the schedule... and any other property in the name of the 1st defendant, if the property details are furnished by the plaintiff, shall carry the charge of maintenance ordered by this Court," the Court proceeded to order while allowing the appeal. .The appellants (mother and son) were represented by advocate Sameer SN..[Read Judgment]