Karnataka High Court
Sri. Subhas S/O Holabasappa ... vs Smt.Shobha W/O Subhas Naroji on 7 July, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100092 of 2017
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. 100092 OF 2017 (-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUBHAS S/O HOLABASAPPA NAROJI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/AT: ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIDANAND B. PATIL FOR SRI.MRUTYUNJAY
TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.SHOBHA W/O SUBHAS NAROJI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
TQ: MUDHOL, NOW R/AT: VENKAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA JADAV (KADADI)
AT ARER ONI, MULGUND,
TQ: and DIST: GADAG 582 101.
2. KUMARI KEERTHI D/O SUBHAS NAROJI
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/AT: ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
TQ: MUDHOL, NOW R/AT: VENKAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA JADAV (KADADI)
AT ARER ONI, MULGUND,
TQ: and DIST: GADAG 582 101.
MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN
SMT.SHOBHA W/O SUBHAS NAROJI.
-2-
RPFC No. 100092 of 2017
3. KUMARI AISHWARYA D/O SUBHASH NAROJI
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/AT: ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
TQ: MUDHOL, NOW R/AT: VENKAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA JADAV (KADADI)
AT ARER ONI, MULGUND,
TQ: and DIST: GADAG 582 101.
MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN
SMT.SHOBHA W/O SUBHAS NAROJI
4. KUMARI SANJANA D/O SUBHASH NAROJI
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/AT: ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL,
TQ: MUDHOL, NOW R/AT: VENKAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA JADAV (KADADI)
AT ARER ONI, MULGUND,
TQ: and DIST: GADAG 582 101.
MINOR, REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN
SMT.SHOBHA W/O SUBHAS NAROJI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1)
---
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DTD:20.06.2017, IN CRL.MISC. NO.173/2016, ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
RPFC No. 100092 of 2017
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in
Crl.Misc.No.173/2016 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gadag, challenging the order dated 20.06.2017 allowing the
petition in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this
petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking
before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent
married petitioner No.1 on 30.03.2000 at Gadag and in their
wedlock, three daughters were born, namely, petitioners No.2 to 4.
It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent suspected the
character of petitioner No.1 and was acting as psycho and was
interfering with the day to day work of the petitioners and as such,
the petitioners left the matrimonial home and residing with the
parents of petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that,
despite making request to lead a happy life, the respondent is not
cooperating for the same and as such, the petitioners being
aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent, have left
the matrimonial home and as such, to eke out their livelihood,
RPFC No. 100092 of 2017
petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.173/2016 before the Family Court
seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance
and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the
petition. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was examined
herself as PW1 and examined one more witness as PW2 and
marked one document as Ex.P1. On the other hand, respondent
husband was examined himself as RW1 and no documents were
marked on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Family Court after considering the material on
record, by order dated 20.06.2017, allowed the petition in part
awarding Rs.2,000/- per month each to the petitioners. Being
aggrieved by the same, respondent - husband has preferred this
petition.
6. I have heard Sri. Sachidanand B. Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. V. S. Kalsurmath,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Sri. Sachidanand B. Patil, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner-husband contended that, petitioners themselves
RPFC No. 100092 of 2017
left the matrimonial home and award of Rs.2,000/- per month each
to the petitioners is on the higher side, which requires to be
interfered in this petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents - wife and children, sought to justify the impugned
order passed by the Family Court.
9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was
solemnized on 30.03.2000 and in their wedlock, 3 children were
born and they have been arraigned as petitioners No.2 to 4 in this
petition. Perusal of the record would indicate that the respondent -
husband has filed M.C.No.8/2015 before the competent Court,
seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending
consideration before the Court. Perusal of the finding recorded by
the Family Court would indicate that the petitioners - wife and
children are residing at the parental house of the petitioner No.1 at
Mulgund and therefore, I am of the view that the award of
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month each to the petitioners is
RPFC No. 100092 of 2017
proper and justifiable and as such, the impugned order does not
call for any interference in this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
