Smt.Renuka W/O. Ramesh Karguppi vs Ramesh S/O. Shivaputrappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10861 Kant

                             -1-




                                    RPFC No. 100004 of 2021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
     REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100004 OF 2021 (-)

BETWEEN:


1.   SMT. RENUKA W/O. RAMESH KARGUPPI
     AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: KALMESHWAR NAGAR,
     B.K.KANGRALI, BELAGAVI

2.   KUMARI DANESHWARI D/O. RAMESH KARUGUPPI
     AGE. MINOR,
     (SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR, HENCE SHE IS
     REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
     I.E.PETITIONER NO.1)

                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

AND:


     RAMESH S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA KARGUPPI
     AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
     R/O.AVARGOL VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI,
     DIST. BELAGAVI

                                               ...RESPONDENT
(NOTICIE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD 28.10.2020
IN CRL.MISC. NO.493/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
                                -2-




                                     RPFC No. 100004 of 2021


    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

                          ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against

the order dated 28.10.2020 in Crl. Misc. No.493/2017 on

the file of the Family Court, Belagavi, dismissing the

petition.

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

marriage of the first petitioner was solemnized with the

respondent on 01.05.2015 at Basaveshwar Kalyan Mantap,

Avargol, Hukkeri, Belagavi and in their wedlock, the

second petitioner was born.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the

respondent was not taking care of the needs of the

petitioner and as such, the petitioner left the matrimonial

home and residing at the parents of the petitioner No.1.

RPFC No. 100004 of 2021

Hence, the petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No.493/2017 on the

file of the Family court seeking maintenance.

5. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed objections as he is not working and

he is physically disabled and taking stipend from the

Government and as such, his contention is that, he is

unable to take care of the wife and children.

6. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and

marked 08 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The respondent

was examined as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1 to R.5. The

Family court after considering the material on record by

order dated 28.10.2020, dismissed the petition. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented

this petition. The respondent is served and un-

represented.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that,

the respondent herein is having immoveable property and

therefore, no finding recorded by the Family Court with

RPFC No. 100004 of 2021

regard to the immoveable property vested with the

respondent.

8. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is not in

dispute that, the marriage between the petitioner No.1

and the respondent was solemnized on 01.05.2015 and in

their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. Looking into the

finding recorded by the trial Court, it is not in dispute that

the respondent is getting pension for his physical disability

from the Government, however, perusal of the finding

recorded by the trial Court, as well as the Ex.P.7 and

Ex.P.10 would indicate that, the respondent herein is

having immoveable property and the said aspect has not

been considered by the Family Court while declining to

entertain the petition. In that view of the matter, it is a fit

case to remand the matter to the Family Court to

adjudicate the matter on merits considering the entire

documents on record vis-à-vis scope of Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. In the result, I pass the following:

RPFC No. 100004 of 2021

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) Crl. Misc. No.493/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

(iii) Since the petitioner is appeared through their counsel, the petitioner shall appear before the Family Court on 18.08.2022 and in that event, the Family Court shall issue notice to the respondent for his appearance and take appropriate action in the matter and dispose of the petition, within six months from the receipt of this order, upon service of notice to respondent.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH