Karnataka High Court
Manjula W/O Parashuramappa @ ... vs Parashuramppa @ Basangouda S/O. ... on 5 July, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100048 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100048 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MANJULA W/O PARASHURAMAPPA @ BASANAGOUDA
IRANAGOUDAR
AGE. 37 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O. SHIRAGUMPI
TQ. YALABURGA
DIST. KOPPAL
NOW AT HIREKOPPA-582102
TQ AND DIST. GADAG
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SADANAND M.K. FOR
SRI K S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARASHURAMPPA @ BASANGOUDA S/O.
MAHADEVAGOUDA IRANAGOUDAR
AGE. 42 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIRAGUMPI-583278
TQ. YALABURGA
DIST. KOPPAL
NOW AT HIREKOPPA-582102
TQ AND DIST. GADAG
...RESPONDENT
-2-
RPFC No. 100048 of 2021
RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD
22.10.2019 IN CRL.MISC. NO.199/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision petition is filed by the petitioner in
C.Misc.No199 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family
Court Gadag, challenging the order 22nd October, 2019,
allowing he petition in part.
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 plaintiff that the marriage
between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 18th
April, 1999 and relation was cordial for two years and as there
was no children in wedlock, the respondent started harassing
the petitioner and as such, the petitioner left the matrimonial
home and residing with her parents. It is the case of the
petitioner that respondent has not provided basic necessities to
the petitioner and as such, the petitioner filed C.Misc.No.199 of
2018 before the Family Court, seeking maintenance.
RPFC No. 100048 of 2021
4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance
and filed detailed written statement denying the averments
made in the petition. It is the case of the respondent that he is
having 1.09 guntas of land and he has to take care of his
mother and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. In
order to prove their case, petitioner was examined as PW1 and
got marked two documents as Exhibits P1 and P2. Respondent
was examined as RW1 and produced two documents as Exhibits
R1 and R2. The Family Court, after considering the material on
record, by its order dated 22nd October, 2019 awarded
maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. Being aggrieved
petitioner-husband has filed this Revision petition.
5. Respondent is served, unrepresented.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Taking
into consideration the fact that the marriage is not disputed by
the respondent before the Family Court and perusal of the
finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the
petitioner is residing at her parental house, I am of the view
that the Family Court has not properly awarded maintenance as
required Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the
RPFC No. 100048 of 2021
duty of the husband to look after the wife and children and
cannot take a plea that he has no means (see AIR 1999 SC
2374). It is not in dispute that the petitioner is residing at
Hirekoppa village at Gadag. Considering the age of the
petitioner, I am of the view that as the respondent has
admitted that he is having immovable properties the
respondent-husband shall be directed to pay maintenance to
the petitioner at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. In the light
of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(1) Revision Petition is allowed in part;
(2) Order dated 22nd October, 2019 passed in
C.Misc.199 of 2018 is modified and the
respondent-husband is directed to pay
maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the
petitioner from the date of the petition before
the Family Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LN
