Karnataka High Court
Shridhar S/O. Sundaram.P vs Mrs.Shoba W/O. Shridhar.S on 4 July, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100001 of 2020
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. 100001 OF 2020 (-)
BETWEEN:
SHRIDHAR S/O. SUNDARAM. P.
AGE : 33 YEARS, OCC : NIL,
R/O : HOUSE NO.65, OM NAGAR,
BEHIND OZONE HOTEL, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAFULLA S NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. SHOBA W/O. SHRIDHAR S.
AGE : 27 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : SIDDARTH COLONY,
NEAR NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024
2. KUM. TANISH S/O SHRIDHAR S.
AGE: 4, 1/2 YEARS,
R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT. SHOBA W/O. SHRIDHAR S.
R/O : SIDDARTH COLONY,
NEAR NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.C.SAJJANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 IS MINOR, REPTD. BY R1)
-2-
RPFC No. 100001 of 2020
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
22.10.2019, IN CRL.MISC.NO.333/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY. THE
COURT MADE/DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent,
challenging the order dated 22.10.2019, in Crl. Misc.
No.333/2016 on the file of the Principal Family Judge
Court, Hubballi, allowing the petition in part.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this
revision petition are referred to as per their ranking before
the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the
petitioner No.1 married the respondent-husband on
24.04.2014 at Dharwad. In wedlock, the petitioner No.2-
child was born. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that,
there was a rift in the Family with regard to the demand
made by the family members of the respondent for dowry
and therefore, she left the matrimonial home and residing
RPFC No. 100001 of 2020
with her parents and as such, the petitioners have filed
Crl. Misc. No.333/2016 on the file of the Family Court,
seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, the respondent-husband
entered appearance and filed detailed written statement
denying the averments made in the petition.
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1
was examined as P.W.1 and produced 03 documents as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The respondent-husband was examined
as R.W.1 and marked 01 document as Ex.D.1. The Family
Court after considering the material on record by its order
dated 22.10.2019, awarded maintenance at the rate of
Rs.1,500/- per month each to the petitioners and being
aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed
this petition.
6. I have heard Sri. Prafulla S. Naik, lerned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.C.Sajjanavar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1.
RPFC No. 100001 of 2020
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
argued that, the respondent-husband has filed petition
before the Family Court, seeking restitution of conjugal
rights and same came to be allowed, however, the
petitioner No.1-wife is not joining the respondent-husband
and as such, she submits that the petitioners are not
entitled for maintenance. She further contended that, the
respondent-husband has met with an accident on
30.09.2015 and therefore, he was not able to work for his
livelihood and accordingly, she sought for interference of
this Court.
8. Per contra, Sri. P.C.Sajjanavar, learned counsel
for the respondent No.1, sought to justify the impugned
order.
9. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and
the respondent was solemnized on 24.04.2014 at Dharwad
and in their wedlock, the petitioner No.2 was born. A
RPFC No. 100001 of 2020
perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would
indicate that, M.C.No.128/2017 and Crl. Misc.
No.184/2016 are filed between the parties and in that
view of the matter, it is not in dispute that the petitioners
are residing separately from the respondent-husband. It
has also come in the finding recorded by the Family Court
that, the respondent in his cross-examination has
admitted that since 5 to 6 months, he is able to work and
in that view of the matter, I do not find any material
illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Family
Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
