Karnataka High Court
Smt. Channabasavva @ Champa W/O. ... vs Sri. Shivaji S/O. Ramappa ... on 31 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
RPFC 100092/2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
R.P.F.C.No.100092/2018
BETWEEN:
Smt. Channabasavva @ Champa,
W/o Shivaji Bhajantri,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Kalasapur, Tq. & Dist. Gadag. ..PETITIONER
(By Smt. Padmaja Tadapatri, Adv. for
Sri K.L.Patil, Adv.)
AND:
Sri Shivaji, S/o Ramappa Bhajantri,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Govt. Service,
R/o Office Superintendent and
Degree College, Sports Hostel,
Near Dental College,
Dist. Davangere. ..RESPONDENT
(By Sri I.S.Uppin, Adv.)
This revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and order
dated 03.08.2018 in Crl. Misc. No.87/2018 on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, partly allowing the
petition filed under Section 127 Cr.PC.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day the
Court made the following:-
RPFC 100092/2018
-2-
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-wife
challenging the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, in Crl. Misc.
No.87/2018.
2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the
purpose of disposal of this petition are, the petitioner is
the wife of the respondent and she had earlier filed a
petition under Section 125 Cr.PC in Crl. Misc.
No.30/2000 seeking maintenance from the respondent,
which was partly allowed by the jurisdictional court on
09.01.2004 awarding maintenance of `2,000/- per month.
The petitioner, thereafter, in the year 2018 had filed a
petition before the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.PC
seeking enhancement of maintenance amount to `5,000/-
per month. It is her case that the respondent is gainfully
earning and the meager amount of `2,000/- awarded to
her towards maintenance is not sufficient having regard
to the escalation of the price of essential commodities.
RPFC 100092/2018
3. The respondent had entered appearance in the said
proceedings before the Trial Court and contested the
same.
4. The learned Judge of the Family Court vide the
impugned order had partly allowed the petition and
enhanced the maintenance amount from `2,000/- to
`3,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e.,
27.04.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-
wife is before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
having regard to the income of the respondent-husband,
the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is
very meager. She submits that the petitioner has no
source of income, and therefore, the Family Court ought
to have enhanced the maintenance amount to `5,000/- as
claimed by the petitioner. She submits that the
respondent has admitted before the Trial Court that his
salaried income per month is `27,000/-. Therefore, the
Family Court was not justified in enhancing the
RPFC 100092/2018
maintenance amount from `2,000/- to `3,000/-, and
accordingly, she prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent
submits that the petitioner has refused to join the
respondent and she has voluntarily left his company. He
submits that the maintenance awarded is just and proper
and needs no interference, and accordingly, prays to
dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed
on both sides and also perused the material available on
record.
8. The relationship between the parties is not in
dispute and the fact that the earlier petition filed by the
petitioner-wife under Section 125 Cr.PC was entertained
and she was awarded maintenance of `2,000/- per month
is also not in dispute. The present petition was filed before
the Family Court seeking enhancement of maintenance
amount which was awarded in the year 2004. Though the
petitioner has contended before the Family Court that the
RPFC 100092/2018
respondent is having an income of `75,000/- per month,
the same was not proved. However, the respondent
himself has admitted before the Family Court that his
salaried income was `27,000/- per month.
9. The cause title of the petition would go to show that
the respondent is a Government servant working as
Superintendent in a Government Degree College,
Davangere. The respondent himself has admitted that his
monthly income was `27,000/-. It is not the case of the
respondent that the petitioner-wife has her own source of
income to maintain herself. Therefore, he is duty bound to
maintain his wife.
10. Having regard to the escalation in the cost of living
and considering the fact that the maintenance amount of
`2,000/- was awarded in the year 2004, the petition filed
by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance amount
is required to be considered favourably. In view of the
admitted income of the respondent, the Family Court was
not justified in enhancing the monthly maintenance from
RPFC 100092/2018
`2,000/- to `3,000/-. In my considered view, the Family
Court ought to have enhanced the maintenance amount
to `5,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner having
regard to the admitted income of the respondent and also
considering the present cost of living.
11. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The
order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gadag, in Crl. Misc. No.87/2018 is
modified and it is held that the petitioner-wife is entitled
for an enhanced maintenance amount of `5,000/- per
month from the date of petition i.e., 27.04.2018 during
her lifetime or till she gets re-married.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
