Shri. Irappa Ramappa Bhairoji At ... vs Smt. Mallawwairappa Bhiroji At ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8017 Kant

                                -1-




                                      RPFC No. 100009 of 2021


     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
         REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100009 OF 2021 (-)
BETWEEN:

1.     SHRI. IRAPPA RAMAPPA BHAIROJI @ HOSMANI,
       OCC: RETD.GRAMEEN DAK SEVAK,
       R/O.KUKODALI,TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI



                                                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. DEEPAK S KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. MALLAWWAIRAPPA BHIROJI @ HOSMANI,
       OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O.KUKODALI,TALUKA AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.



                                                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.NAGARAJ J APPANNAVAR.,ADVOCATE)

        THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT,    1984,   AGAINST   THE   JUDGMENT   AND   ORDER   DATED
28.10.2020, IN CRL.MISC. NO.336/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.

        THIS PETITION IS COMING FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
                                  -2-




                                          RPFC No. 100009 of 2021


                                ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent-

husband in Crl.Misc.No.336/2018 on the file of the Prl.

Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, challenging the order dated

28/10/2020, whereby the Prl. Judge, Family Court allowed

the petition in part filed by the petitioner-wife.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this

revision petition are referred to with their rank before the

Family Court.

3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition

are that the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized at Kukodalli village of Belagavi

taluka as per the customs prevailing in their community. It is

the case of the petitioner-wife that the respondent-husband

has not taken care of needs of the petitioner and she has

been neglected and accordingly, having not tolerated

inhuman harassment meted out by her husband, she left the

matrimonial home and residing with her parents.

Accordingly, the petitioner-wife filed Crl.Misc. No.336/2018

RPFC No. 100009 of 2021

before the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Belagavi seeking

maintenance.

4. On service of notice, respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objections denying the

averments made in the claim petition and submitted that he

got married with Parvathi on 24/5/1985 and having four

children and as he has retired from the service, he is not

able to provide maintenance to the petitioner.

5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner got

examined as PW.1 and produced eight documents and the

same were marked as EX.P.1 to EX.P.8. Respondent was

examined as RW.1 and produced two documents and the

same were marked as EX.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The Family Court,

after considering the material on record, by order dated

28/10/2020 allowed the petition in part and directed the

respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month

during the lifetime of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the

order of the Family Court, respondent-husband has

presented this petition.

RPFC No. 100009 of 2021

6. I have heard Sri. Deepak S Kulkarni, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Nagaraj J Appannavar,

learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that the finding recorded by the Family Court is

erroneous as the petitioner herein is having no means to pay

maintenance to the respondent herein as he has been retired

from the service and he is aged about 66 years. Accordingly,

he sought for interference of this court in the impugned

order.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by

the Family Court.

9. In the light of the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the

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

the petitioner-wife married the respondent-husband in the

year 1970 and having not tolerated harassment meted out

by the respondent-husband, she left the matrimonial home

RPFC No. 100009 of 2021

and residing with her parents. It is also forthcoming from the

impugned order that the respondent-husband has willfully

neglected the petitioner-wife and got married with one

Parvathi and having four children. It is also forthcoming from

the impugned order that the petitioner herein is having

immovable properties. Considering the fact that the

petitioner herein was working in the Department of Posts as

per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2, I am of the view that, Family Court

has rightly awarded the maintenance. In view of the law

declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarika

Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another,

reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, wherein proceedings under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a summary proceedings and Court

cannot determine the rights of the parties and in that way of

the matter, I do not find merits in the petition. Accordingly,

the Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Vb/-