Narayan S/O Appanna Badiger vs Smt. Jayashree Alias Sunanda W/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10174 Kant

                            -1-




                                  RPFC No. 100043 of 2022


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
       REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2022
BETWEEN:

1.   NARAYAN
     S/O APPANNA BADIGER
     AGE. 52 YEARS,
     OCC.SERVICE IN BANK OF INDIA
     R/O. BANK OF INDIA,SUBASH NAGAR,
     NEAR MARTHA MANDAL COLLEGE,
     AT PRESENT PARISWAD,
     BADIGER ONI, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE,
     PARASWAD
     TQ. KHANAPUR
     DIST. BELAGAVI PIN-591302
                                            ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVI N CHIKKARADDER., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SMT. JAYASHREE ALIAS SUNANDA
     W/O NARAYAN BADIGER
     AGE. 45 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
     R/O.SHRI. RMEAH GOPAL,KAMMAR,
     NEAR III RD GATE,
     R.C.NAGAR, BELAGAVI
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590006

2.   KUMARI CHAITRA
     D/O. NARAYAN BADIGER
                                  -2-




                                       RPFC No. 100043 of 2022


     AGE. 25 YEARS,
     OCC. STUDENT
     R/O.SHRI. RMEAH GOPAL,KAMMAR,
     NEAR III RD GATE,
     R.C.NAGAR, BELAGAVI
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590006

3.   KUMARI SAMIKSHA D/O NARAYAN BADIGER
     AGE. 9 YEARS,
     OCC. STUDENT
     R/O.SHRI. RAMESH GOPAL,KAMMAR,
     NEAR III RD GATE,
     R.C.NAGAR, BELAGAVI
     DIST. BELAGAVI-590006

     (SINCE PETITIONER NO.3 BEING MINOR, IS
     REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN
     SMT. JAYASHREE ALIAS SUNANDA W/O NARAYAN
     BADIGER)

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRANAGI, ADVOCATE)

     RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2021
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI
IN CRL.MISC.NO.400/2018; AND ETC.
     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY.
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
                         JUDGMENT

This revision petition is filed by the respondent-husband

challenging the order dated 09th December, 2021 passed in

C.Misc.No.400 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi,

allowing the petition in part.

RPFC No. 100043 of 2022

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this

petition are referred to with their status and rank before the

Family Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner

No.1 is the wife of the respondent and in their wedlock

petitioners 2 and 3 are born. Petitioners 1 and 2 had filed

C.Misc.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court and the

Family Court, by order dated 28th March, 2012, allowed the

petition in part granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month

to petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to petitioner No.2.

The petitioner No.3 had filed C.Misc.No.316 of 2014, on the file

of the Family Court against the respondent and by order dated

01st March, 2017, the Family Court awarded maintenance of

Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner No.3. Finding it difficult

to maintain the family, the petitioners have filed petition under

Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure in C.Misc.No.400 of

2018 seeking enhancement of maintenance. It is the case of

the petitioners that petitioner No.2 is a college student and

requires considerable amount for hostel and educational

expenses including tuition fees, and therefore, sought for

modification of the order.

RPFC No. 100043 of 2022

4. On service of notice respondent entered appearance

and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the

petition. It is the specific case of the respondent-husband that

he is interested to take back the petitioners to matrimonial

home and to continue the conjugal rights. It was further

contended that the claim made by petitioners are exorbitant

and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. In order

to establish their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 and

marked three documents as per Exhibits P1 to P3. On the

other hand, the respondent was examined as RW1 and

produced nine documents as Exhibits R1 to R9. The Family

Court, after considering the material on record, by its order

dated 09th December, 2021, allowed the petition in part and

enhanced the maintenance to Rs.13,000/- per month to the

petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-

husband has presented this Revision Petition.

5. I have heard Sri Ravi N Chikkaradder, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Sri Santosh Biranagi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.

RPFC No. 100043 of 2022

6. Shri Ravi N Chikkaradder, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the

impugned order passed by the Family Court requires

interference on the ground that the respondents themselves

are residing separately and are not willing to join the

petitioner-husband and therefore, providing huge maintenance

to them does not arise.

7. Per contra, Sri Santosh Biranagi, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned

order passed by the Family Court.

8. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the

respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondents 2

and 3 are the children of the petitioner and the respondent

No.1 herein. In C.Misc.No.70 of 2010, the Family Court has

granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- per month

to the petitioners 1 and 2 therein, as well as, in C.Misc.No.316

of 2014, the Family Court has awarded maintenance of

Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner No.3. The aforesaid

proceedings are of the year 2010 and 2014; further, perusal of

RPFC No. 100043 of 2022

the cause-title in the impugned order would substantiate the

fact that petitioners 2 and 3 are pursuing their studies in

college and school respectively, and therefore, the

enhancement of maintenance by the Family Court is just and

proper. It has also come in the finding recorded by the Family

Court that the respondent-husband, as per record, is working in

Bank of India and as per the pay-slip for the month of

September, 2021, the gross salary of the respondent-husband

(petitioner herein) was Rs.68,106/- and is also having

agricultural lands in Pariswad village, Khanapur Taluk. Hence,

taking into consideration the law of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of RAJANESH v. NEHA reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, I am

of the view that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court

is just and proper and the same does not call for any

interference in this petition. Further, taking into consideration

the scope of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is

the duty of the husband to look after and to maintain the wife

and children and as per paragraph 92 of the aforementioned

judgment, the Apex Court has held that education expenses of

the children must be normally be borne by the father and if the

wife is working and earning sufficiently, expenses may be

RPFC No. 100043 of 2022

shared proportionately between the parents. In the instant

case, the respondent-husband has not proved that petitioner

No.1-wife is working and in that view of the matter, I do not

find any perversity in the order passed by the Family Court. In

the result, petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly,

dismissed.

9. Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the

Family Court for disbursement to the petitioners before the

Family Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LN