Sri.Channabasayya S/O Kotrayya ... vs Smt.Iramma W/O Channabasayya ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10415 Kant

                                -1-




                                      RPFC No. 100071 of 2019




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

            DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF JULY, 2022

                            BEFORE
             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
         REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100071 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:

1.     SRI.CHANNABASAYYA S/O KOTRAYYA HIREMATH,
       AGE: 61 YEARS,OCC: LAND LORD AND BUSINESS,
       R/O: YEREBELERI,TQ: RON,
       DIST: GADAG- 582209.



                                                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S M KALWAD.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT.IRAMMA W/O CHANNABASAYYA HIREMATH,
       AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O: NALWAD GALLI,GADAG-581117.



                                                 ...RESPONDENT

        THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT,    1984,   AGAINST   THE   JUDGMENT   AND   ORDER   DATED
04.06.2019, IN CRL.MISC.NO.68/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.



        THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY. THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
                                   -2-




                                          RPFC No. 100071 of 2019


                             ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by respondent in

Crl.Misc.No.68/2018 on the file of the Ist Addl. Family Court,

Gadag, allowing the petition in part.

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

Revision Petition are referred to with their rank before the

Family Court.

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

between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on

11/5/1980 at Gadag and in their wedlock, a son was born. It is

the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was driven out

from the matrimonial home and thereafter, the petitioner

started residing with her parents. It is the case of the petitioner

that the respondent-husband is having five children through his

second wife Smt.Girijavva and accordingly, the petitioner filed

Crl.Misc.No.68/2018 before the Family Court, seeking

maintenance from the respondent-husband.

4. On service of notice, respondent entered

appearance and disputed the birth of Son-Siddalingappa in

RPFC No. 100071 of 2019

their wedlock and also disputed the marriage. Accordingly, he

sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, plaintiff got examined

herself as PW1 and examined two more witnesses as PWs. 2

and 3 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The

respondent-husband was examined himself as RW1 and

examined two more witnesses as RWs.2 and 3 and produced 10

documents as Exs. R1 to R10.

6. The Family Court after considering the material on

record by its order dated 04.06.2019 allowed the petition in

part and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has

presented this petition.

7. Sri.S. M. Kalwad, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner herein contended that the finding recorded by the

Family Court is erroneous on the ground that the respondent-

husband has disputed the marriage with the respondent herein.

He further contended that the respondent-husband married one

Girijavva on 23.01.1980 much earlier to the alleged marriage

RPFC No. 100071 of 2019

as stated by the petitioner-wife on 11.05.1980 and got five

daughters and therefore, he contended that the said aspect has

not been considered by the Family Court.

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

counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully considered

the material on record produced by the petitioner-wife to

substantiate the marriage as per Exs. P1 to P15. In this

regard, the petitioner-wife has stated that she got married

respondent-husband on 11.05.1980 at Gadag and therefore, it

is well settled principle of law that, the proceedings under

Section 125 Cr.P.C., being a summary proceeding, the Family

Court cannot determine the rights of the parties with regard to

the relationship in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs

Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another reported in AIR 1999 SC

3348, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a summary

proceeding, Family Court does not determine the rights of the

parties. Therefore, I am of the view that the finding recorded

by the Family Court with regard to disputing the relationship

between the parties cannot be gone into in this petition.

RPFC No. 100071 of 2019

9. However, insofar as the award of maintenance is

concerned, the Family Court after considering the material on

record, particularly, with regard to the discussion held at

paragraphs 45 and 46 has come to the conclusion that the

respondent-husband is having 15 acres 33 guntas of land as

the respondent-husband himself admitted in the evidence and

accordingly, awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to

the petitioner, which is not exorbitant as argued by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition

is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB/gab