Karnataka High Court
Meenakshi S/O Shivappa Vaddar @ ... vs Shivappa S/O Durgappa Vaddar @ ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100203 of 2015
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.100203 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. MEENAKSHI S/O SHIVAPPA VADDAR @ KADADI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: C/O
NAGARATHNA VASANT WALLEPURKAR HOUSE
NO.534, MARUTI GALLI, KHASBAG BELAGAVI
2. PRASAD S/O SHIVAPPA VADDAR @ KADADI
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O: C/O NAGARATHNA VASANT WALLEPURKAR
HOUSE NO.534, MARUTI GALLI, KHASBAG BELAGAVI
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVAPPA S/O DURGAPPA VADDAR @ KADADI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: CHOUDAL
KANNADA MEDIUM PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHOUDAL,
TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI A S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
RPFC No. 100203 of 2015
RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 17.06.2015 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.341 OF
2013 ON THE FILE FO THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECCTION 125
OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners,
challenging the order dated 17th June, 2015 passed in
C.Misc.No.341 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court at
Belagavi, partly allowing the petition.
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 marriage
between plaintiff No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 15th
December, 1991 at Samarth Kalyan Mantap, Tilakwadi,
Belagavi and in their wedlock petitioners 2 and 3 were born. It
is the case of the petitioners that, respondent made a demand
of dowry and was rudely behaving with the petitioners and the
petitioners were ousted from the conjugal home by the
RPFC No. 100203 of 2015
respondent on 04th April, 2012. it is also stated that
MC.No.161 of 2012 was filed by the wife seeking dissolution of
marriage. It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioners
require maintenance to lead their life and accordingly, they filed
C.Misc.No.341 of 2013 of 2013 before the Family Court seeking
maintenance.
4. On service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objection contending that the
petitioners themselves left the matrimonial home and he never
neglected the petitioners and accordingly sought for dismissal
of the petition. The Family Court recorded the evidence of
Plaintiff No.1 as PW1 and got marked 10 documents as Exhibits
P1 to P10. The respondent was examined as RW1 and marked
nineteen documents as Exhibits R1 to R19. The Family Court,
after considering the material on record, by its order dated 17th
June, 2015, dismissed the petition as against the petitioners 1
and 3, however awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month
to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioners
have presented this Revision Petition.
RPFC No. 100203 of 2015
5. Heard Sri S.A. Sondur on behalf of Sri Srinivas B.
Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri
Sabeel Ahmed for Sri A.S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
6. Sri S.A. Sondur, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners contended that the finding recorded by the Family
Court declining to grant maintenance to petitioner No.1 is
without any reason and the same requires to be interfered with
in this petition.
7. Per contra, Sri Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, while supporting the order
passed by the Family Court, argued that the petitioner No.2
Kum. Sowmya was got married and the respondent herein has
paid Rs.1,60,000/- towards the marriage expenses of the
petitioner No.2 and he further argued that in that view of the
matter, no further interference is required in this matter.
8. In view of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered
the finding recorded by the Family Court. Perusal of the same
would indicate that the marriage between the petitioner No.1
RPFC No. 100203 of 2015
and the respondent was solemnized on 15th December, 1991 at
Belagavi and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children born in their
wedlock. It has also come in evidence that respondent-
husband was working as a Teacher at Doddakurabanahalli. It
is not in dispute that petitioner No.3 was aged about 18 and
had attained majority as on the date of the filing of the petition.
It is also submitted before this Court that the second
petitioner-Kum. Sowmya was married. However, having taken
note of the reasons assigned by the Family Court declining to
grant maintenance on the ground that the MC No.161 of 2012
was pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge,
Laxmeshwar, the said finding cannot be accepted on the
ground that it is the duty of the husband to look after the wife
and provide basic necessities. The very purpose of providing
maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure
is to provide immediate relief to the applicant. In terms of the
law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
ABHILASHA v. PARKASH reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355 wherein
it is held that the maintenance, as contemplated under Section
125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is a summary proceedings
and therefore, the immediate need of the destitute wife and
RPFC No. 100203 of 2015
children has to be looked into and on perusal of the scope of
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it may be inferred
that, in the event, if maintenance is declined to wife, it goes
against the object of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(see AIR 1999 SC 3348). In view of the law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that the
finding recorded by the Family Court, rejecting the application
made by wife under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure
is erroneous and contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court referred to above and accordingly, it is a fit case to
remand the matter to Family Court for fresh consideration. In
the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(1) Revision petition is allowed in part;
(2) Order dated 17.6.2015 in C.Misc.No.341 of
2013 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi
is set aside in respect of the petitioner No.1
(Smt. Meenakshi).
RPFC No. 100203 of 2015
(3) Matter is remanded to the Family Court for
fresh consideration after affording opportunity
of hearing to both sides;
(4) In order to facilitate early disposal of the
petition, parties are directed to appear before
the Family Court on 25th July, 2022 without
awaiting notice fro the Family Court;
(4) It is also made clear that the Family Court
shall dispose of the petition within six months
from the date of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LN
