Sri Nanjaiah vs Smt Gowramma
2021 Latest Caselaw 1301 Kant

                                               RPFC No.116/2013
                                   1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                            BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

                  R.P.F.C. No. 116 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

Sri. Nanjaiah,
S/o. Late Sri. Mallaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o No. Kaggala Village,
Mallinathapura Post,
B.G.Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District - 571 417.                       ...Petitioner

(By Sri. K. Abhinav Anand, Advocate)

AND:

Smt. Gowramma
W/o. Sri. Nanjaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.151/F,
Bapuji Children Home,
3rd Stage, 4th Cross,
Gokulam,
Mysore City - 570 002.                        ...Respondent

(By Sri. Abhubacker Shafi, Adv.)

      This RPFC filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 against the order dated 04.07.2012 passed in C.
Misc No.687/2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court,
Mysuru, partly allowing the petition filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
                                                                 RPFC No.116/2013
                                        2


      This R.P.F.C. coming on for Final Hearing through Video
Conferencing/Physical Hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:

                                      ORDER

The petitioner herein was the respondent in C. Misc.

No.687/2011 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court,

Mysore ( for brevity the 'Family Court'), which was instituted by

the present respondent, who is the petitioner in the said Court

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(hereinafter for brevity, referred to as "Cr.P.C.") claiming

maintenance from the respondent therein, who is said to be her

husband.

2. The Family Court by its judgment dated

04.07.2012, allowed the said petition in part holding that the

petitioner/wife before it was entitled for maintenance

@ `3,000/- p.m., and directed the respondent before it, to pay

the said amount of maintenance from the date of petition

during the lifetime of the petitioner before it and also directed

to pay `4,000/- towards the cost of litigation to her.

Challenging the said order, the respondent before the Family

Court has preferred this petition.

RPFC No.116/2013

3. The respondent being represented by her counsel,

is appearing through Video Conference.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing

physically in the Court.

5. Heard the arguments from both side.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner (husband) in his

brief arguments submits that, he does not dispute the

relationship between the parties and admits that the

respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner. However,

he submits that, since he remained ex-parte in the Family

Court, an opportunity to be given to him to put-forth his

contention in the Court, since he has got valid grounds to

contest the maintenance petition. In that regard he also draws

the attention of this Court to Annexure-B to the present

petition, which is the photo copy of the alleged police

publication, where it is shown that the present respondent

(wife) was alleged to be found missing from 28.11.2007 and

the present petitioner, as her husband, had filed a missing

complaint in Belakawadi Police Station.

RPFC No.116/2013

7. Learned counsel for the respondent (wife), though

initially opposes remanding the matter to the Family Court for

its fresh consideration, however submits that, he may not have

any objection provided, the amount of maintenance ordered by

the Family Court under the impugned order be continued to be

paid, till the disposal of the said C. Misc. No.687/2011 after its

remand, including the payment of arrears and cost of litigation,

as ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits his 'no

objection' for the same.

8. In the light of the above submission, I am of the

view that, since the present petitioner had remained ex-parte in

the Family Court and claims that he has got a good case on

merit to oppose the petition, liberty be given to him to contest

the matter. At the same time, the petitioner (wife) in the Family

Court (respondent herein) also cannot be denied maintenance

amount, since she claims that she is unable to maintain herself.

In that aspect, I proceed to pass the following,-

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed in part.

RPFC No.116/2013

ii) Judgment dated 04.07.2012 in C.Misc. No.687/2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at Mysore, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for its disposal afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondent before it to contest the matter in accordance with law, subject to the condition that the petitioner herein (respondent before the Family Court) paying maintenance @`3,000/- pm. and arrears if any to the petitioner therein, till the disposal of C.Misc. No. 687/2011 by the Family Court.

iii) However, it is made clear that the Family Court without being influenced by the order made today to continue to pay maintenance, to dispose of the petition before it, in accordance with law.

iv) The early disposal of the matter not later than four months from today, by the Family Court is appreciated,

v) In order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the matter, both the parties herein are directed to appear before the Family Court without anticipating any fresh notice or summons, on 09.02.2021 at 11.00 a.m. RPFC No.116/2013

The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with the Family Court's record to the concerned Court, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*