Karnataka High Court
Smt.Geeta W/O. Rajeshekhar Warad vs Rajshekhar S/O. Basavarajappa ... on 18 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
RPFC 100050/2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
RPFC.No.100050/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Geeta,
W/o Rajeshekhar Warad,
Age: 29 years,
Occ: Homemaker,
R/o # 5, 2nd Floor,
Vibha Apartment,
Near Hatalgeri Naka,
Gadag.
2. Kumari Bhandhavi,
D/o Rajeshekhar Warad,
Age: 7 years.
3. Kumar Pratham,
S/o Rajeshekhar Warad,
Age: 5 years. ..PETITIONERS
Petitioners 2 & 3 represented by
their mother guardian Smt. Geeta,
W/o Rajshekhar Warad,
Age: 29 years, Occ: Homemaker,
R/o # 5, 2nd Floor,
Vibha Apartment,
Near Hatalgeri Naka,
Gadag.
(By Sri Parashuram Sajjanar, Adv. for
Sri Vishwanath S.Bichagatti, Adv.)
RPFC 100050/2018
-2-
AND:
Rajshekhar,
S/o Basavarajappa Warad,
Age: 41 years,
Occ: Software Engineer,
R/o # 87, 5th B Main,
RPC Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore. ..RESPONDENT
(Service of notice held sufficient vide Order dt: 28.10.2021)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Court Act, 1984, against the judgment and order dated
03.01.2018 in Crl. Misc. No.66/2015 on the file of the Prl.
Judge, Family Court, Gadag, partly allowing the petition filed
under Section 125 Cr.PC.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The
sole respondent is served and unrepresented.
2. This petition is filed by the wife and children of the
respondent seeking enhancement of maintenance amount
awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, in
Crl.Misc.No.66/2015 vide his order dated 03.01.2018.
3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the
purpose of disposal of the case as revealed from the
RPFC 100050/2018
records are, petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of
the respondent and their marriage was solemnized at
Raichur on 11.12.2009. From the said wedlock,
petitioners 2 & 3 were born. Petitioner no.2 was aged
about 4 years and petitioner no.3 was aged about 2 years
at the time of filing the petition before the Family Court
seeking maintenance. The respondent is a software
engineer.
4. It is the case of petitioner no.1 that the respondent
was in the habit of watching pornography and thereafter,
he was sexually ill-treating petitioner no.1. Even after
petitioner no.1 gave birth to two children, the respondent
did not mend his behaviour and continued to behave
violently during the course of sex. In the event, petitioner
no.1 protested the same, the respondent used to assault
her. It is under these circumstances, petitioner no.1
unable to bear the torture meted out to her, returned to
her parents house along with the children. The
respondent who was gainfully employed failed to provide
necessary maintenance to the wife and children and it is
RPFC 100050/2018
under these circumstances, the petitioners had filed
petition under Section 125 Cr.PC seeking monthly
maintenance of `20,000/- to petitioner no.1 and
`10,000/- each to petitioners 2 & 3.
5. The respondent had entered appearance and filed
his objections denying the petition averments. The learned
Judge of the Family Court vide the impugned order has
partly allowed the petition granting maintenance amount
of `1,500/- each to the petitioners from the date of the
petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are
before this Court seeking enhancement of monthly
maintenance amount.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Family Court has awarded a meager maintenance amount
having regard to the income of the respondent. He
submits that petitioner no.1 has no independent source of
income, and therefore, the Family Court ought to have
granted adequate maintenance amount to the petitioners
to live a dignified life in the society. He submits that in
RPFC 100050/2018
addition to the salary income, the respondent has also got
income from his agricultural properties, and therefore, the
Family Court was not justified in granting a meager
maintenance amount of `1,500/- each per month to the
petitioners having regard to the present cost of living. He
accordingly prays to allow the petition.
7. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on behalf of the petitioners and also considered
the material available on record.
8. The relationship between the parties is undisputed.
It is also not in dispute that the respondent is a software
engineer. From the wedlock, petitioner no.1 and the
respondent have two minor children who are admittedly
now in the custody of petitioner no.1. Having regard to the
ill-treatment meted out on her, petitioner no.1 was
constrained to leave the company of the respondent and
take shelter in her parents house. It is not the case of the
respondent that petitioner no.1 is gainfully employed or
she has any source of income to maintain herself and her
RPFC 100050/2018
children. The respondent has filed a detailed statement of
objection before the Family Court contending that his
monthly income in the year 2010 was `23,000/-. Though
he has produced salary certificate subsequently stating
that his monthly salary was `10,000/-, the same cannot
be believed having regard to the statement made by the
respondent that his monthly salary in the year 2010 was
`23,000/-. He has also admitted in his statement of
objections that he is the only son to his parents. Exs.R-4
& R-5 are the RTC extracts of the agricultural land which
stand in the name of respondent's father. The material on
record would go to show that the total extent of the said
land measures 28 acres. Therefore, I find force in the
contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that
in addition to the monthly salary income, the respondent
has also other income from his agricultural properties.
9. It is a settled principle that the husband is bound to
take care of his wife and children and provide them a
decent monthly maintenance unless he proves that the
wife who has separated from him has got her own source
RPFC 100050/2018
of income. Even in the said event, the responsibility of the
father to maintain the children would still subsist.
10. In the case on hand, the material on record would
go to show that the respondent is a software engineer who
was drawing a salary of `23,000/- as on the year 2010
and the agricultural properties measuring 28 acres stand
in the name of his father. Admittedly, the respondent is
the sole son to his parents. Under the circumstances,
having regard to the cost of living and more so having
regard to the fact that as on the date of the order, the
children were school going, the maintenance amount
awarded by the Family Court is on the lower side. The
petitioners who are the wife and children of a software
engineer, who is also the joint owner of the agricultural
property measuring 28 acres, are entitled for higher
maintenance amount so as to enable them to lead a
decent living. Having regard to the fact that petitioner
no.1 is required to meet the educational expenses of
petitioners 2 & 3 in addition to meeting their day today
expenses, I am of the considered view, that if an amount
RPFC 100050/2018
of `10,000/- is awarded to the wife and an amount of
`5,000/- each is awarded to the children, that would meet
the ends of justice. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
11. This revision petition is allowed in part. The order
dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court,
Gadag, in Crl.Misc.No.66/2015 is modified and it is held
that the petitioner no.1 is entitled for a sum of `10,000/-
per month and petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled for `5,000/-
each per month from the respondent towards their
maintenance. The maintenance amount shall be paid by
the respondent to petitioner no.1 from the date of the
petition till her lifetime or till she gets re-married. In so far
as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the respondent shall pay
the maintenance from the date of the petition till she gets
married and in so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned,
from the date of petition till he attains the age of majority.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
