Sanjay Yashwant Hanchinmani vs Mary @ Sahana W/O Sanjay ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10498 Kant

                             -1-




                                    RPFC No. 100152 of 2015


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                           BEFORE
            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
         REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100152 OF 2015 (-)
BETWEEN:

1.   SANJAY YASHWANT HANCHINMANI,
     AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: BAILWAD,
     TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102



                                                   ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SMT. MARY @ SAHANA W/O SANJAY HANCHINMANI,
     AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO.513,
     LBS NAGAR, NAIK GALLI, KANGRALI BK,
     TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 010.



                                                  ...RESPONDENT

       THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF

THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER

DATED 1/8/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI,

PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF

CR.PC.

       THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY.

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
                                  -2-




                                        RPFC No. 100152 of 2015


                             ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in

Crl.Misc.No.383/2014 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family

Court, Belagavi, challenging the order dated 1/8/2015,

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 29/5/2013 at Bailhongal, Belagavi district and

thereafter, there is a rift in the family and as such the

petitioner left the matrimonial home. The respondent has

filed M.C.No.51/2014 seeking dissolution of marriage

before the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal and it is the case

of the petitioner that the respondent-husband is not taking

care of the needs of the petitioner and as such the

petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.383/2014 before the Family

Court seeking maintenance.

RPFC No. 100152 of 2015

4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance

and filed statement of objections, denying the averments

made in the petition. It is the case of the respondent-

husband that he is working on contract basis and

therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, petitioner was examined

as PW.1 and produced ten documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.

On the other hand, the respondent was examined as RW.1

and did not produce any document. The Family Court, after

considering the material on record, by order dated

1/8/2015, allowed the petition in part and directed the

respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner-wife and being aggrieved by

the order of the Family Court, the respondent-husband has

presented this petition.

6. Sri. Sangram S Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner herein contended that the award of

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is on the higher side

and he further submits that the respondent-husband was

RPFC No. 100152 of 2015

working in health department earlier and thereafter, he has

left the job and as such, he sought for interference of this

Court.

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

counsel appearing for the petitioner, perusal of the finding

recorded by the Family Court would indicate that there is

no dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and

respondent was solemnized on 29/5/2013 and in view of

the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

Act in M.C.No.51/2014, it could be concluded that the

petitioner-wife is residing separately from the respondent-

husband. Perusal of the finding recorded by PW.1 would

indicate that the respondent-husband is a Government

employee and drawing salary of Rs.19,500/- per month

besides having agricultural property. However, no

document was produced by the respondent-husband to

counter the same. In that view of the matter, I am of the

opinion that the award of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per

month granted by the Family Court is just and proper and

RPFC No. 100152 of 2015

it does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly,

the Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB