Smt. Roopa W/O. Sanjeev Sanikoppa vs Shri. Sanjeev S/O. Basavaraj ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7841 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

                 RPFC NO.100002 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

  1. SMT. ROOPA
     W/O SANJEEV SANIKOPPA
     AGE 35 YEARS
     OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
     D/O RACHAPPA MURGI, "AMAR KUNJ"
     R/O ANANDASHRAMA ROAD
     NEAR HALKERIMATH, MASARI
     GADAG 582 101

  2. KUMAR NITIN
     S/O SANJEEV SANIKOPPA
     AGE 9 YEARS
     OCC; STUDENT

       PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR
       REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
       PETITIONER NO.1 MOTHER
                                             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. PADMAVATI S. PADAPATRI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

       SANJEEV
       S/O BASAVARAJ SANIKOPPA
       AGE 42 YEARS
                                  2




      OCC: ENGINEER INFOSYS
      FEZ 12, MANNAHALLI,
      TALU MULSHI
      DISTRICT PUNE 411 004
                                                   ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

      This Revision Petition is filed under Section   19(4) of the
Family Court Act against the judgment and             order dated
08.12.2017 in Crl. Misc.96 of 2014 on the file of     the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Gadag, partly allowing the       petition filed
under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

      This Revision Petition coming on for final hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the petitioners in Crl.

Misc.No.96 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Gadag, assailing the order dated 08th December, 2017,

allowing the petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to with their rank and status before the family court.

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

between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on

25th February, 2007 at Sri Jagadguru Panchacharya Mangalya

Mandir, Gadag as per the customs of the parties. It is further

stated that the respondent was working as Software Engineer in

Satyam Computers at Hyderabad and thereafter, he joined

Infosys at Pune. It is further stated in the claim petition that the

respondent was not taking care of the petitioners, however in

their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born on 14th September,

2008. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent has

physically and mentally tortured the petitioners and as such,

petitioners were constrained to file Crl. Misc. No.96 of 2014 on

the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, seeking

maintenance.

4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance

and denied the averments made in the claim petition. It is the

specific case of the respondent that the respondent has got

insured the petitioner No.1-wife with a global amount and

regularly paying premium in the name of the Petitioner No.1 to

the tune of Rs.9,500/- per annum and also similar benefit has

been extended to petitioner No.2. To show his bona fides

respondent has contended that, even after the desertion, the

respondent is continuing to pay the premium in terms of the

policy availed by him in favour of the petitioners, apart from

making fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of the

petitioner No.1. It is further stated in the objection statement

that the petitioner herein has filed MC No.78 of 2014 seeking

dissolution of the marriage, which petition came to be dismissed.

Accordingly, respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. In

order to prove their case, petitioner 1 was examined as PW1 and

produced 10 documents and respondent was examined as RW1

and produced 46 document and the same were marked as

Exhibits R1 to R46. The Family Court, after considering the

material on record, by its order dated 08th December, 2017

directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of

Rs.3,000/- to each of the petitioners from the date of petition.

Feeling not satisfied with the award of maintenance made by the

Family Court, petitioners have presented this revision petition.

5. I have heard Smt. Padmavati S. Tadapatri, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sharad N. Patil,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Smt. Padmavati, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, contended that the family court has not properly

appreciated the aspect that the respondent was a software

engineer working at Infosys, Pune as well as at Hyderabad and

Chennai and earning handful salary, however he has not

bothered to take care of his wife and child. She further

contended that the respondent is earning more than Rs.60,000/-

per month apart from possessing immoveable properties.

However, the award of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the

petitioners is on the lower side, which requires enhancement in

this revision petition.

7. Per contra, Sri Sharad M. Patil, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned

order passed by the Family Court and invited the attention of the

Court to the documents referred to at Exhibits P9 to P17 and

contended that the respondent has provided adequate financial

assistance to the petitioner apart from keeping fixed deposit of

Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of petitioner No.1 and that the

respondent has left his job and is residing at native place Itagi

running own business in the name and style "S.S. Online

services" providing online service to public with regard to making

PAN Card, RTO related applications, Passport and correction of

Aadhar cards online and earning Rs.13,000 to 15,000/- per

month as per the affidavit dated 29th November, 2020 and

accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

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

counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner No.1 married the respondent on 25th February, 2007

at Gadag and Petitioner No.2 is born in their wedlock. Perusal of

the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the

petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing along

with her parents. The finding recorded by the trial Court with

regard to issue No.2 would indicate that the petitioners have left

the company of the respondent and therefore, it is the obligation

on the part of the respondent to provide maintenance to the

petitioners. Though several grounds were urged with regard to

various suits referred to in the impugned order, however taking

into consideration the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

a catena of decisions, it is the duty of the husband to take care

of the wife and children as Section 125 Code of Criminal

Procedure is a measure of social justice to protect the women

and children and therefore, taking into account the financial

condition of the respondent, though the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent urged that the respondent has left

job at Pune as a Software Engineer, however considering the

factual aspect that the petitioner No.2 is now studying in high

school, I am of the view that the amount of maintenance

awarded by the Family Court requires to be interfered with in

this petition by enhancing the monthly maintenance that

respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to petitioner

No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.2 considering the societal

status of the parties. Though the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent invited the attention of the court to the share

certificate, PPF and LIC, however it is the duty of the husband to

provide basic necessity like food and shelter to his wife and

children. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated

08th December, 2017 passed in Crl.Misc.No.96 of 2014 by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, is modified by enhancing the

monthly maintenance payable by the respondent to the

petitioners 1 and 2. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn