Karnataka High Court
Shri.Maruti S/O Hanumant Pujari vs Smt.Shashikala W/O Maruti Pujari on 1 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100121 of 2019
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
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100121 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI.MARUTI S/O HANUMANT PUJARI
AGE.59 YEARS,OCC. PENSIONER
R/O MANIKATTI,TQ. SAUNDATTI
DIST. BELAGAVI,AND ALSO RESIDING AT MARUTINAGAR,
SHINDOGI,CROSS NEAR FATIMA TEAC SHOP
MANVALLI,TQ. SAUNDATTI
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O MARUTI PUJARI
AGE.51 YEARS,occ. HOUSEHOLD WORK
SHIVAKUMAR R/O C/O: SHIVANAIK ALADMARAD
HIREMATH
4TH CROSS,ANJANEYA NAGAR
Digitally signed by KELAGERI,DHARWAD-580007
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
Date: 2022.06.04
00:17:31 -0700
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ROHIT L SHEELAVANT, ADV.,
FOR SRI. V.M.SHEELAVANT.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:02.07.2019, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.272/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
-2-
RPFC No. 100121 of 2019
FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125(1)OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this Revision Petition, the respondent in
Crl.Misc.No.272/2016 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family
Court, Dharwad is assailing the order dated 2/7/2019,
whereby the petition came to be allowed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
revision petition are referred to with their status before the
Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner before the Family
Court that the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 17/5/1992 at Munavalli
village, Saundatti taluka as per Hindu customs. It is further
stated in the claim petition that a child was born in wedlock.
It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent used to
ill-treat the petitioner and has not provided basic necessities
to the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about
RPFC No. 100121 of 2019
the fact that the respondent having illicit relationship with
other woman, it is stated that respondent has filed
M.C.No.12/2000 before the Competent Court at Saundatti
seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is further stated in
the claim petition that petitioner has filed application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim
maintenance, and competent court has directed the
respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to
the petitioner and her daughter from the date of the petition
with costs at Rs.5,000/-. It is further stated in the petition
that the respondent has willfully neglected the petitioner and
her child and accordingly, petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.
No.272/2016 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court,
Dharwad seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objections denying the
averments made in the claim petition. To prove their case,
petitioner was examined as PW.1 and produced 13
documents and the same were marked as EX.P.1 to EX.P.13.
Respondent was examined as RW.1 and produced 42
RPFC No. 100121 of 2019
documents and the same was marked as EX.R.1 to Ex.R.42.
The Family Court, after considering the material on record,
by order dated 2/7/2019 allowed the petition in part and
directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by
the order impugned, the respondent-husband has filed this
petition.
5. I have heard Sri.Santosh B Rawoot, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rohit L Sheelavant
representing Sri.V.M.Sheelavant, learned counsel for the
respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that husband has filed M.C.No.12/2000 before the
competent court seeking relief of restitution of conjugal
rights and in the said case, competent Court has ordered
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- in
Crl.Misc.No.272/2016 which is bad in law and as such he
submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court
requires interference by this Court.
RPFC No. 100121 of 2019
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by
the Family Court. He further contended that though the
competent court in M.C.No.12/2000 has granted
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, however, the
petitioner-husband is irregular and has not paid the
maintenance to the respondent-wife and therefore, he
contended that no interference is required in this revision
petition.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal of the
impugned order would indicate that, there is no dispute with
regard to the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent on 17/5/1992 and giving birth to a daughter in
their wedlock. Perusal of the finding indicates that
M.C.No.12/2000 was filed seeking restitution of conjugal
rights and the said case came to be disposed of awarding
permanent alimony of Rs.4,000/- per month to the
respondent herein and her daughter from the date of the
petition with litigation expenses. However, perusal of the
RPFC No. 100121 of 2019
finding recorded by the Family Court and taking into account
that the petitioner herein was irregular and has not paid the
permanent alimony as ordered in M.C.No.12/2000, I am of
the view that, petitioner has not honoured the judgment and
decree in M.C.No.12/2000 and in view of the law declared by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
v/s Sujay Mangesh Poyarelar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that jurisdiction of
the revisional court is very limited and no interference be
made by the revisional court unless there is fragrant injustice
caused to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, there is
no merit in the Revision Petition, accordingly, the revision
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
