Yallappa Kallappa Vitlapur vs Smt. Shayantawwa Yallappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 73 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                R.P.F.C.No.100091/2017

BET WEEN

YALLAPPA KALLAP PA VIT LA PU R,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICU LTU RE,
R/O CHEBBI - 580028,
TALU K: HUBB ALLI,
DISTR ICT: DHARWAD.
                                          ...PET ITIONER

(BY SRI K.S.PATIL AND
 SRI VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    SMT.SHAYANT AWWA Y ALLAPPA VITLAPUR,
      (ALLEG ING T O B E WIFE),
      AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTU RE.

2.    GOOLAP PA YALLAP PA VITLA PUR,
      (ALLEG ING T O B E SON),
      AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT .

      B OTH ARE RESIDE NTS OF CHEBB I,
      TALUK: HUBB ALLI, NOW AT Y ALIWAL,
      TQ: KU NDAGOL, DIST : DHARWAD-5 80027,
      (SINCE RESPOND ENT NO.2 IS MINOR
      REPRES ENTED B Y RESPONDENT NO.1
      NAT URAL GU ARDIAN MOTHER).
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.S.NIRANJAN, ADVOCAT E FOR R1;
 R2 MINOR REPRESENTED B Y R1)
                                     2




      THIS R.P.F.C. IS FIL ED UNDER SECTION 19( 4) OF THE
FAMILY COU RT ACT, 1984, A GA INST THE JU DGMENT AND
ORDER      DATED    04.04.2017   PASSED   IN   CRL.MISC.
No.191/ 2014 ON T HE FILE OF THE PR INCIPA L JU DGE,
FAMILY     COURT,   HUBB ALLY,   PART LY ALLOW ING    T HE
PET IT ION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.

     THIS PET ITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS
DAY THE COU RT MADE T HE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

Petitioner-husband has filed this revision

petition challenging the judgment and order dated

04.04.2017 passed by the Court of Principal Judge,

Family Court, Hubballi in Crl.Misc.No.191/2014

wherein the learned Judge of the Family Court had

awarded a maintenance of `4,000/- to the 1st

respondent-wife and `3,000/- to the 2 n d respondent-

son per month.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition

are:

The marriage of the petitioner with the 1st

respondent herein was solemnized on 21.06.1999 and

from the said wedlock; the couple have a son who is

the 2 n d respondent herein. Though the couple lived a

happy married life initially, subsequently there was

some misunderstanding which had resulted in

frequent quarrels and it is the case of the 1st

respondent-wife that the petitioner was harassing her

physically and mentally and in the year 2010, he

threw away the wife and son out of his house and

thereafterwards they started residing in the house of

1 s t respondent's parents. The respondents herein had

filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before

the jurisdictional Family Court claiming maintenance

of `6,000/- each from the petitioner herein. The said

petition was disposed off by the Family Court on

22.06.2015 granting maintenance amount of `3,000/-

to the wife and `2,000/- to the son per month. The

said order was questioned by the petitioner herein

before this Court in RPFC No.100139/2015 and the

matter was remanded to the Family Court to dispose

off the case in accordance with law after fresh

enquiry. Thereafterwards during the course of

evidence, four witnesses were examined in support of

the respondents herein and six documents were

marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The petitioner herein got

examined three witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and

marked one document as Ex.R1. The learned Judge of

the Family Court vide the impugned judgment and

order partly allowed the petition granting

maintenance amount of `4,000/- per month to the

wife from the date of petition till her lifetime and a

sum of `3,000/- per month to the son from the date

of petition till he attains age of majority. Being

aggrieved by the same, petitioner-husband is before

this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is an

agriculturist and he is not in a position to pay huge

amount of `7,000/- per month to the respondents. He

submits that the petitioner has disputed the

relationship and he has produced material to show

that he has married to one Smt.Ningawwa who has

been examined as RW3. He has also produced the

wedding card as Ex.R1 to show that the petitioner is

married to Smt.Ningawwa. He submits that in the

absence of sufficient evidence on record, the Family

Court has erred in holding that the respondents are

wife and son of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents submits that the respondents have

produced more than sufficient material before the

Family Court to prove the marriage of the petitioner

with the 1 s t respondent. He refers to Ex.P1, the

wedding card and Ex.P2 and P7-school certificates of

respondent No.2-son and the Aadhaar cards at Exs.P5

and P6 and submits that these documents coupled

with the oral deposition of PW1 to PW4 clearly

establishes that the respondents are the wife and son

of the petitioner herein. He submits that the

petitioner is the joint owner of the lands bearing

Sy.Nos.206/2 and 230/2 which measures nearly 15

acres and therefore it cannot be said that the

petitioner is not in a position to pay the maintenance

amount to his wife and son. Accordingly, he prays to

dismiss the petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to

the rival submissions and also perused the material

available on record.

6. The respondents herein who have

approached the Family Court claiming maintenance

amount under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. have produced

documents such as school certificate of the son and

also Aadhaar card of the parties to show that

respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the wife and son

of the petitioner. The wedding card of the petitioner

and respondent No.1 is produced as Ex.P1. In

addition to the same, the evidence of the witnesses

examined in support of the respondents would also

clearly establish that the petitioner and the 1st

respondent are the husband and wife and respondent

No.2 herein is the son born to the said couple.

Therefore, the respondents herein have produced

sufficient evidence before the Family Court to prove

that they are the wife and son of the petitioner

herein.

7. A perusal of the Ex.R1 and the evidence of

RW3 would prima facie show that the petitioner has

remarried after deserting his first wife and son.

Exs.P3 and P4 are the RTC extracts of the land

bearing Sy.Nos.206/2 and 230/2; they stand jointly

in the name of petitioner and his brother.

Sy.No.206/2 totally measures 6 acres 36 guntas

while Sy.No.230/2 measures 8 acres 17 guntas.

Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner is the

joint owner of these two items of land which totally

measures more than 15 acres. The evidence on

record would go to show that these lands are

irrigated lands and the petitioner is growing two

crops in the said land. Therefore, there is no merit in

the contention of the petitioner that he is a poor

agriculturist and he is not in a position to pay the

maintenance amount to the respondents who are

none other than the wife and son of the petitioner.

The wife is awarded a sum of `4,000/- per month and

the son has been awarded a sum of `3,000/- per

month. It is settled principle of law that the husband

is duty bound to maintain his wife and children. It is

not the case of the petitioner that his wife is earning

or she has got any other source of income. The son is

aged about 17 years and it is not disputed by the

parties that he is a student. Therefore, the 1st

respondent-mother is also required to take care of

the education expenses of her son. It is not the case

of the petitioner that he has been taking care of the

education expenses of his son. Under the

circumstances, I am of the considered view that the

maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is

not on the higher side and having regard to the fact

that the petitioner is a joint owner of agricultural

lands measuring more than 15 acres, it cannot be

said that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the

amount of `7,000/- per month to the respondents.

The learned Judge of the Family Court having

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence

available on record has passed a just and proper

order granting maintenance amount of `4,000/- to

the wife and `3,000/- per month to the son and the

said order does not suffer from any irregularity which

needs no interference by this Court. Under the

circumstances, I find no merit in the revision

preferred by the husband. Accordingly, petition is

dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

CLK