Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shanker vs Smt. Sita W/O Shanker Chavan on 9 February, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 RPFC.No.200055/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
RPFC.No.200055/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANKER S/O DEVU CHAVAN
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: GOVT. SCHOOL TEACHER
R/O: HPS KANNADA SCHOOL
KURABKEHALAGI TQ: BHALKI
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ K. BUKKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SITA W/O SHANKAR CHAVAN
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: ARAKERI LT-3,
TQ: & DIST: BIJAPUR-586 107. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 (4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS IN CRL.MISC.NO.340/2017 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED
PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPUR AND SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT IN CRL.MISC.NO.340/2017 DATED
17.11.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT VIJAYAPUR.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 28.01.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2 RPFC.No.200055/2018
ORDER
This is the husband's revision petition filed under
Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging
the order dated 17.11.2017 by which the Family Court
has enhanced the maintenance payable to the
respondent - wife from `.3,000/- to `.5,000/-.
02. Since, the parties are involved in several
round of litigations, for the sake of convenience, they
are referred to as petitioner - husband and
respondent - wife.
03. The marriage of the petitioner - husband
and respondent - wife took place in 1993 and they are
having three sons through their wedlock. The
petitioner - husband is working as a primary school
teacher at Kurabkehalagi of Bhalki Taluk, Bidar
District. The respondent - wife has alleged that the
petitioner - husband has contacted second marriage
and having three sons through the said wedlock. She
alleges that right from the inception, the petitioner -
husband refused to stay with her and he never took
care of her and forced her to stay in her parents
house for the most of time. He got employment as a
Teacher at Coorg District, but he did not take the
respondent - wife with him and left her with his
parents. Alleging that he has failed and neglected to
maintain her and her son, who was staying with her,
at the first instance she has filed Crl.Misc.No.48/2002
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.
Though, the Family Court granted maintenance of
`.300/- to her son, but rejected her petition forcing
her to file RPFC.No.103/2003, which came to be
allowed granting maintenance of `.500/- to the
respondent - wife and enhanced the maintenance
payable to her son from `.300/- to `.500/-.
04. Subsequently, the respondent - wife filed
Crl.Misc.No.353/2007 seeking enhancement of
maintenance. Vide order dated 07.02.2009, the
maintenance was enhanced to `.1,000/-.
05. Once again she has filed Crl.Misc.No.
182/2014 for enhancement and vide order dated
02.05.2015 the maintenance was enhanced from
`.1,000/- to `.3,000/-. Again the respondent - wife
has filed Crl.Misc.No.340/2017 and vide dated
17.11.2017 the maintenance is enhanced from
`.3,000/- to `.5,000/-, which is impugned in the
present revision petition.
06. The learned counsel representing the
petitioner - husband submitted that right from the
beginning the respondent - wife is not ready to come
and live with him to lead marital life and on the other
hand, she is only interesting in getting maintenance.
He has also submitted that the respondent - wife is a
graduate and capable for maintaining herself.
07. On the other hand, the learned counsel
representing the respondent - wife submitted that the
petitioner - husband has contacted second marriage
and having three sons from the said wedlock and he
never allowed her to stay with him and in the
circumstances, without any alternative, she is seeking
enhancement of maintenance.
08. Admittedly, even though the parties are
involved in the litigations since 2002, the petitioner -
husband has never taken any action against the
respondent - wife, even seeking restitution of
conjugal rights or divorce on the ground of desertion
or any other grounds available to him. As husband, he
is duty bond to maintain respondent - wife.
Admittedly, the respondent - wife is not having any
source of income or avocation to maintain herself. The
petitioner - husband is a Teacher working in the
Government School. The learned counsel representing
the respondent - wife submitted that even though
respondent - wife tried to get the salary details of the
petitioner - husband, he managed to see that salary
certificates are not furnished to her. In the impugned
order at Para No.6, the Family Court has observed
that petitioner - husband has getting salary of
`.30,000/- per month and he is also having landed
properties earning `.10,00,000/- per annum.
Admittedly, the petitioner - husband has not produced
the salary certificate to show the exact salary drawn
by him. Taking into consideration the cost of living as
well as the status of the parties, the Family Court has
enhanced the maintenance from `.3,000/- to `.5,000/-
per month, which is reasonable.
09. The learned counsel representing the
petitioner - husband has submitted that if the
respondent - wife is not satisfied with the quantum of
maintenance granted by the Family Court, she should
have approach the High Court for enhancement. But,
on the other hand, she goes on filing fresh petitions
before the Family Court.
10. It is pertinent to note that the petitions
filed by the respondent - wife, before the Family Court
are under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. which makes
provision for alternation in allowance on proof of
changed circumstances. The said provision is available
to the wife, parents and children for seeking
enhancement and in case of respondent who is paying
the maintenance for seeking reduction on account of
changed circumstances, such as his retirement or
reduction in income or he having become incapable of
earning etc., Therefore, the respondent - wife is well
within her right to approach the Family Court seeking
enhancement of the maintenance.
11. Absolutely, there are no grounds made out
by the petitioner - husband, to interfere with the
discretion exercise of the Family Court. In the result,
the revision petition filed by petitioner - husband fails
and accordingly, it is dismissed.
12. Registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court records along with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
