Karnataka High Court
Smt.Lata Devi W/O Sadashivananda vs Sadashivananda S/O Kashappa ... on 12 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
R.P.F.C.No.100058/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.LATA DEVI, W/O. SADASHIVANANDA DANDIN
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD
R/O:SIDDALINGA NAGAR, GADAG
2. POOJA, D/O. SADASHIVANANDA DANDIN
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
R/O:SIDDALINGA NAGAR, GADAG
3. KEERTINATH SADASHIVANANDA DANDIN
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
R/O:SIDDALINGA NAGAR, GADAG
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J S SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SADASHIVANANDA, S/O KASHAPPA DANDIN
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O:NEAR PANJARAPOL KALASAPUR ROAD,
GADAG.
..RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT - HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.
NO.22/2014 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE OF FAMILY COURT,
GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the wife and children of
the respondent being not satisfied with the
maintenance amount awarded by the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag in Crl.Misc.
No.22/2014 vide its judgment and order dated
11.10.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are;
The marriage of the first petitioner herein with
the respondent was solemnized on 30.03.1988 at
Siddarudha Math, Hubballi, as per the customs and
rites prevailing in the community. Petitioners No.2
and 3 are the children born from the said wedlock. It
is admitted case of the parties that, from the wedlock
the couple have five children. Subsequently, the
relationship between the couple got strained due to
difference of opinion. The wife has alleged that the
respondent was ill-treating and harassing her. It is
the case of the petitioners that the respondent is
running cloth business in Gadag and he has also got
real estate business. It is their further contention
that the respondent owns residential as well as
agricultural properties in Gadag. The petitioners have
contended that the respondent was addicted to bad
vices and he was ill-treating his wife and children. It
is the further case of the petitioners that the
respondent has now contracted a second marriage
with his employee, who was working in his cloth
shop. The petitioners have been neglected and
deserted by the respondent and though he has got
means, he has not taken care of the petitioners and
under the said circumstances the petitioners had filed
a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming
monthly maintenance of `10,000/- each from the
respondent.
After service of notice in the said proceedings,
the respondent had entered appearance and filed a
detailed statement of objections denying the
averments made in the petition. It was contended by
him that the wife had willfully deserted him and he
does not own any business or agricultural properties
as contended by the petitioners. He had further
contended that he was staying in a rented
accommodation and he had no income of his own. He
also contended that the wife and children have filed
multiple cases against him with an intention to
harass him. He also contended that, he had suffered
stroke and thereby for the last nearly three years he
was suffering from paralysis and therefore he was
dependent on others for his livelihood. He further
contended that the major children of the first
petitioner were all gainfully employed and therefore
the petitioners were not in need of any maintenance
amount from him. Accordingly he prayed to dismiss
the petition.
In order to substantiate petitioners' case, the
first petitioner had examined herself as PW1 and got
marked 7 documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. In support
of the defence, the respondent examined himself as
RW1 and three other witnesses were examined as
RW2 to RW4. No documents were marked in support
of the defence.
The learned Judge of the Family Court
thereafterwards heard the arguments addressed on
both sides and on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, allowed
the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in part
and granted maintenance of `3000/- each to the
petitioners. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the petitioners are before this Court in
this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the respondent though served in this petition,
has remained absent. He submits that, in spite of
filing execution cases, though the respondent has got
sufficient income, he has not been paying the
maintenance amount awarded to the petitioners. He
submits that the petitioners are finding it difficult to
lead their lives because of the attitude of the
respondent. He also submits that the respondent not
only has got cloth business, but he also owns
residential properties as well as agricultural
properties in Gadag. He refers to the document at
Exhibits P4 to P7 in support of his arguments. He
submits that, Exhibits P1 to P3 would go to show that
the respondent has a flourishing cloth business. He
therefore prays to allow the petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to
the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners
and also perused the entire material evidence
available on record.
5. The relationship between the parties is not
in dispute. The first petitioner is the wife and
petitioners No.2 and 3 are the children of
respondent. From the cause title of the petition it is
seen that the petitioners No.2 and 3 were students at
the time of filing the petition for maintenance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly
submitted that the second petitioner has now
completed her degree, while the third petitioner is
still studying, but he has attained the age of
majority.
6. The petitioners have produced documentary
evidence in addition to the oral evidence to prove the
income of the respondent. Though the respondent
has contended that his cloth business has been
closed subsequently, the same becomes highly
doubtful having regard to the documents at Exhibits
P1 to P3. RW2 to RW4 have stated in their evidence
that they were employees of the respondent and he
owned cloth business in Gadag. Therefore, prima
facie the petitioners have proved that the respondent
had a cloth business in Gadag. The documents at
Exhibits P4 to P7 would go to show that the
respondent owns residential as well as agricultural
properties in Gadag Taluk. The RTC extract of the
agricultural property, which is produced before the
Court would go to show that, more than 6 acres of
land stands in the name of the respondent. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said
land is a very valuable land. The petitioners have
also produced RTC extract of the land which now
stands in the name of the brother of the respondent.
It is the case of the petitioners that, even though the
lands originally stood in the name of the respondent,
only to avoid payment of maintenance to the
petitioners, the respondent has now created
documents in respect of those properties in favour of
his brother. RW2 to RW4 have admitted before the
Family Court that they were the employees of the
respondent and that the respondent was carrying on
cloth business in Gadag. Having regard to the
number of employees who were employed by the
respondent, it can be gathered that the respondent
had a flourishing cloth business in Gadag.
7. In my considered opinion, having regard to
the fact that petitioners have prima facie proved that
the respondent owned cloth business, which
considerably had a good income and since the
petitioners have also proved that the respondent not
only owned residential properties in Gadag, but also
owned agricultural properties, the Family Court was
not justified in granting the compensation of `3000/-
per month to the petitioners. The respondent has
failed to prove that the wife and children, who are
before the Court, claiming maintenance from him,
have got their own source of income. Under the
circumstances, he has an obligation to maintain the
petitioners, who are his wife and children. The
respondent, who is a businessman, owning residential
as well as agricultural properties in Gadag, is
expected to maintain his wife and children by paying
them decent amount towards their maintenance.
8. Having regard to the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, I am of the considered
view that, if a sum of `5000/- each is awarded to the
petitioners towards their maintenance, that would
meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the following
order:
ORDER
The Revision Petition is partly allowed.
The petitioners are entitled for a maintenance
amount of `5,000/- each per month from the
respondent towards their maintenance.
The respondent is directed to pay the same to
the first petitioner from the date of petition till her
life time or till she gets re-married.
In respect of the second petitioner, the
respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of
`5,000/- from the date of petition till her marriage.
In respect of the third petitioner, the respondent
is directed to pay the maintenance of `5,000/- per
month from the date of petition till the date on which
the third petitioner attains majority.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
