Karnataka High Court
K. Basavaraj Alias Sollapur Basavaraj vs Smt. Dodda Basamma W/O on 28 June, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8804
RPFC No. 100080 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100080 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
K. BASAVARAJ @ SOLLAPUR BASAVARAJ
S/O. LATE SOLLAPUR MANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: NIL (SHOWN AS BUSINESS)
CUM AGRICULTURE IN TRIAL COURT)
R/O: WARD NO. 17,
B. GONAI BALLARI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT - 583 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. DODDA BASAMMA
W/O. K. BASAVARAJ @ SOLLAPUR BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
Digitally signed
SINCECURE, R/O: 6, WARD NO. 22,
by V N
BADIGER
NEAR CANAL, KOPPAGAL ROAD,
Location: High BALLARI - 583 101.
Court of
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDE IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 03.08.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI IN CRL.MISC.NO. 62/2020 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8804
RPFC No. 100080 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the petitioner-husband aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.62/2020 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Ballari by which the Family Court, Ballari while allowing the petition filed by the respondent-wife in part directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards her maintenance.
2. Above Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent-wife, contending that; the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 30.05.1993. That after the marriage though the marriage was consummated, there were no children born to the respondent. That the petitioner at the instigation of his parents neglected the respondent subjected her to physical and mental harassment. She was driven out from the matrimonial home and she has been residing separately. That the petitioner despite having lands and -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8804 RPFC No. 100080 of 2021 sufficient income from his real estate business, failed and neglected to provide any maintenance to the respondent- wife. She contended that the petitioner herein has conducted the second marriage and he is having grown up children.
3. The petitioner-husband filed statement of objection. Though he admitted the marriage denied other allegations made in the petition. It is contended that soon after the marriage, the respondent herein refused to stay with the petitioner and she has been staying separately for over twenty-seven years. That marriage has not been consummated and the petitioner has never neglected or refused to maintain the respondent as alleged. That he is still ready and willing to take her to in his life.
4. After examination the witnesses, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent-wife has made out ground for maintenance accordingly granted the relief as mentioned above.
5. Section 125 of Cr.P.C., contemplates summary inquiry. Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8804 RPFC No. 100080 of 2021 not in dispute. Though the petitioner has contended that the respondent-wife has stayed away from him on her own, the fact that he has contacted second marriage and having children is not disputed. As rightly taken note of by the Family Court same would indicate that the respondent
- herein had justifiable reason not to join the company of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is still subsisting.
6. The facts and the material evidence placed on record would indicate that the petitioner herein has not paid any amount to the respondent towards her maintenance. Though the respondent has approached the Court at a belated stage, that itself cannot be a reason not to consider application for grant of maintenance. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, the Family Court has granted Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance, and same cannot be found either exorbitant, unreasonable or unjustified.
7. No grounds made out. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8804 RPFC No. 100080 of 2021
8. In view of disposal of petition, pending applications, if any, does not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2