Karnataka High Court
Shashikant Bhimappa Yankanchi vs Jyoti W/O Shashikant Yankanchi on 2 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
RPFC NO. 100127 OF 2016
C/W
RPFC NO.100156 OF 2015
RPFC NO.100127 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. JYOTI
W/O SHASHIKANT YANKANCHI
AGE 30 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O HOUSE NO.10, LIG,
SANTOSH NAGAR
POST VIJAYANAGAR
HUBBALLI 580 032
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SHASHIKANT BHIMAPPA YANKANCHI
AGE 32 YEARS
OCC: AIRCRAFT ENGINEER IN COMPANY AT SINGAPORE
R/O NATARAJ ANANDNAGAR,
BADAMI
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT
NOW RESIDING AT #02-153 APT BLK 486
ADMIRALTY LINK
SINGAPORE 750 486
2
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V M SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4)
OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 31.07.2015 IN CRL.MISC.NO.157 OF 2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125
CR.P.C.
RPFC NO.100156 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SHASHIKANT BHIMAPPA YANKANCHI
AGE 31 YEARS
OCC: NIL
R/O: NOW 'NATARAJ' ANANDNAGAR,
BADAMI
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT 587 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V M SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
JYOTI
W/O SHASHIKANT YANKANCHI
AGE 29 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O HOUSE NO/10, LIG
SANTOSHNAGAR, POST VIJAY NAGAR
HUBALLI 580 032
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4)
OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
31.07.2015 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO. 157/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI PARTLY
3
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CR.P.C.
THESE REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
RPFC No.100127 of 2016 and RPFC 100156 of 2015 are
arising out of the order dated 31st July, 2015 in Crl.Misc.No.157
of 2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court hubballi,
allowing the petition in part.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to with their rank and status before the Family Court.
Brief facts of the case for adjudication of these petitions
are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent
was solemnized on 27th April, 2009 at Hubballi. It is the case of
the petitioner that the respondent is working as an Aircraft
Engineer at Singapore and he used to come to India twice a
year. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner,
finding it difficult to lead matrimonial life in marital home,
informed the respondent to take her to Singapore for leading a
happy life, however the respondent, has not yielded to the words
of his wife. It is also forthcoming from the petition that the
respondent visited India in the month of October, 2009 and was
treating the petitioner inhumanely and also denied food to the
petitioner and as such, the petitioner was forced to inform her
parents and thereafter, on the advise of her parents, she
continued to live in the matriominal home. It is further stated in
the petition that the respondent took the petitioner to Singapore
and she stayed there for 45 days and thereafter, the respondent
forced her to go back to India and was torturing the petitioner.
However, the petitioner not able to lead a happy marital life with
the respondent, left Singapore, came to India and now staying
with her parents. In the meanwhile, as the respondent is not
taking care of the basic needs of the petitioner, petitioner was
constrained to file Crl. Misc.No.157 of 2012 on the file fo the
Family Court seeking maintenance.
On service of notice, respondent entered appearance,
however did not file objections. In order to substantiate their
case, petitioner was examined as PW1 and produced 15
documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P15. No
evidence on the side of the respondent. The Family Court, after
considering the material on record, by its order dated 31st July,
2015, allowed the petition and thereby directed the respondent
to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner.
Feeling not satisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded
by the Family Court, the petitioner-wife has filed RPFC
No.100127 of 2016; and being aggrieved by the order of
maintenance, the respondent-husband filed RPFC No.100156 of
2015.
I have heard Shri H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Shri V.M. Sheelavant, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
Shri H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that the award of maintenance at
Rs.10,000/- per month by the Family Court is on the lower side,
taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is an
Aircraft Engineer at Singapore. He further contended that apart
from the salary, the respondent is having land in an extent of
10.38 acres at Hulasageri, Badami Taluk and therefore, the
petitioner-wife has to maintain the identical status with that of
husband and therefore, sought for enhancement of maintenance.
Per contra, Sri V.M. Sheelavant, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-husband, submitted that the respondent has
left the job at Singapore and residing along with his parents at
Badami. Now he is depending upon the earnings of his father.
He further contended that, if a fair opportunity is provided to the
respondent, the respondent will produce cogent material before
the Family Court to substantiate his case on merits and
accordingly, sought for setting aside the impugned order passed
by the Family Court.
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 and the respondent had been
solemnized on 27th April, 2009 and at the relevant point of time,
the respondent was working as an Aircraft Engineer at
Singapore. It is the case of the petitioner that she left the
matrimonial home having not tolerated the inhumane treatment
meted out to her by the respondent-husband and as such, she is
residing with her parents. Perusal of the record would indicate
that the respondent entered appearance, however failed to
contest the matter, by filing objections as well as adducing
evidence before the Family Court. Taking into consideration the
fact that the proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure is a summary proceedings and as per the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that
the settlement was going on during the pending of proceedings
before the Family Court, I am of the view that an opportunity is
to be provided to the respondent to pursue the proceedings
before the Family Court. However, I find force in the submission
made by Sri H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner-wife has been neglected and she is
entitled to lead her life and in that view of the matter, I am of
the view that both the petitions be allowed in part, remanding
the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration after
providing opportunity to both the sides and the respondent-
husband shall be a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the
petitioner-wife from the date of filing of the petition before the
Family Court till the conclusion of the proceedings before the
Family Court. It is made clear that parties shall co-operate for
early disposal. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Revision Petitions are allowed in part;
ii) Order dated 31st July, 2015 in Crl. Misc.No.157 of
2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Hubballi, is set aside remanding the matter
to the Family Court in the light of the above
observation;
iii) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, the
parties shall appear before the Family Court on
20th June, 2022 without waiting for any notice in
this regard;
iv) The Family Court shall complete the entire
proceedings within six months from the date of
receipt of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ln
