Karnataka High Court
Hussainsab Goususab Navali vs Nainajabi Hussainsab Navali on 3 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100014 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
HUSSAINSAB GOUSUSAB NAVALI
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. EMPLOYEE
R/O. VATAPARVI
TQ. KUKANOOR, DIST. KOPPAL
PIN. 583232
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAINAJABI HUSSAINSAB NAVALI
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VATAPARVI, TQ. KUKANOOR
NOW R/O. C/O. YAMANURSAB HOSAMANI
WARD NO.3, NEAR PANDURANGA TEMPLE
HAMALARA COLONY, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL
PIN-82114
2. REHAMANSAB NAVALI S/O. HUSSAINSAB NAVALI,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 MINOR, REPTD. BY R1)
-2-
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
25.02.2021, IN CRL.MISC. NO.276/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in
Crl. Misc. No.276/2020 on the file of the Principal
Judge, Family court, Koppal, challenging the order
dated 25.02.2021, allowing the petition in part.
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/wife that her marriage
was solemnized with the respondent/husband on
11.04.2018 at Varaparvi village of Yelburga taluka,
Koppal district, as per their customs. It is the case of
the petitioner that in the wedlock petitioner No2. was
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
born. It is further averred in the petition that, after
the birth of the second petitioner, respondent was ill-
treating the petitioner No.1 and also made a demand
for dowry and also he tried to commit the murder of
the petitioner No.1 and as such, she left the
matrimonial home and residing with her parents.
Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl. Misc.
No.276/2020 on the file of the Family Court, seeking
maintenance.
4. After the service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance, however, he has not contested the
matter.
5. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and she has
produced 12 documents and the same were marked
as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, no
documents were produced by the respondent side.
6. The Family Court, after considering the material on
record, by order dated 25.02.2021, ordered for
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the
petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the
petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
respondent/husband has preferred this petition.
7. Heard Sri. Manoj N. Bikkannavar, learned counsel for
Sri. Anand R. Kolli and Sri. B.C.Jnanayyaswamy,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
vehemently contended that, the petition was
disposed of at the earliest without providing an
opportunity to the respondent/husband to contest
the matter on merits and accordingly, he sought for
interference of this Court.
9. Per contra, Sri. B.C.Jnanayyaswamy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, sought to justify the
impugned order passed by the Family Court.
10. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, a perusal of the impugned
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
order would indicate that, the marriage between the
petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solmized on
11.04.2018 at Vataparvi village in Yelburga taluka,
Koppal district and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2
was born and therefore, there is no dispute with
regard to the relationship between the parties.
11. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that,
the petitioner has left the matrimonial home for
having not tolerated the inhumane treatment by the
respondent/husband and therefore, the petitioners
are entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., in this regard.
12. Perusal of the observations made by the Famiy Court
would indicate that, the respondent/husband is
working in Fishery Department and is capable of
maintaining his wife and child and therefore, the
finding recorded by the Family Court with regard to
Point No.1 is just and proper. However, looking into
the aspects that the respondent has not contested
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
the matter by filing objections as well as adducing
evidence, I find force in the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
petitioner herein was involved in the COVID-19
Pandemic related issues and therefore, I am of the
view that, a fair opportunity be provided to the
petitioner herein to contest the matter on merits.
13. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the
impugned order passed by the Family Court is set
aside, insofar as the Point No.2 is concerned and
therefore, the same is remanded to the Family Court
for computation of the maintenance with regard to
Point No.2 in the petition. However, it is made clear
that, the Family Court shall reconsider the issue
afresh and pass appropriate orders after granting
opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
14. It is made clear that, till the conclusion of the
proceedings, before the Family court in Crl. Misc.
No.276/2020, the petitioner herein/husband shall
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and
Rs.3,000/- per month, respectively, to the
petitioners, as ordered by the Family Court, till final
order that may be passed in the proceedings.
15. On these observations, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is partly allowed.
(ii) Crl. Misc. No.276/2020 dated
25.02.2021 is set aside and the matter
is remanded to the Family Court for
fresh disposal, in terms of the
observations made above.
(iii) In view of the fact that the parties are
represented through their Advocates
before this Court and in order to avoid
further delay in the matter, the parties
shall appear before the Family Court on
20.06.2022.
(iv) The Family Court shall dispose of the
petition, within six months from the
RPFC No. 100014 of 2021
date of receipt of this order, with regard
to Point No.2 as framed in the petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
