Mr Prakash Basdappa Darveshi vs Smt. Yallawwa W/O Prakash ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8124 Kant

                                               -1-




                                                      RPFC No. 100020 of 2018


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                                             BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                           REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100020 OF 2018 (-)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   MR. PRAKASH BASDAPPA DARVESHI,
                        AGE: 38 YARS,OCC: BUSIENSS/AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O: SANTI BASTWAD,TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.



                                                                    ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SMT. BHARATI S HANAGANDI, ADV., FOR SRI. SHAFIAHAMAD B
                   SHAIK.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   SMT. YALLAWWA W/O PRAKASH DARVESHI,
                        AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                        R/O: C/O. BALAPPA CHANAKUPPI,
                        R/O: SANTI BASTWAD,TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH           2.   PRATIKSHA D/O PRAKASH DARVESHI,
                        AGE: YEARS, SINCE MINOR M/G.
Digitally signed
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
                        REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
Date: 2022.06.04
00:17:11 -0700          PETITIONER NO.1.



                                                                ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI.A.S.HANAMANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHREEVATSA
                   HEDGE, ADV., FOR R1)

                          THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
                   ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:02.01.2018, IN
                   CRL.MISC. NO.61/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
                                  -2-




                                       RPFC No. 100020 of 2018


COURT, BELGAVI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125
OF CR.P.C.

      THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FLOWING:


                           ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the husband-

respondent in Crl.Misc.No.61/2016 on the file of the Family

Court, Belagavi, challenging the order dated 2/1/2018,

allowing the petition in part.

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

revision petition are referred to with their rank before the

Family Court.

3. It is case of the petitioner that the marriage between

the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on

7/3/2005 at Ganesh Temple, Hindalga Belagavi. In their

wedlock, the petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the

petitioners that they have not laid happy married life in the

matrimonial home and the respondent was demanding

dowry and as such the petitioner No.1 has lodged

RPFC No. 100020 of 2018

complaint to the jurisdictional police under Section 498(A)

of IPC. It is further contended that the respondent has

contracted second marriage and having three daughters

and a son. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.

No.449/2005 seeking maintenance and during the

pendency of the said proceedings, respondent-husband

promised to take back the petitioners-wife, however, the

respondent and his family members have not treated the

petitioners properly by providing food and basic necessities

and as such the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.61/2016

seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance

and filed detailed objections denying the averments made

in the claim petition.

5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 was

examined as PW.1 and produced 5 documents and the

same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The respondent

was examined as RW.1 and produced 2 documents which

were marked as EX.R.1 to EX.R.2. The Family Court, after

RPFC No. 100020 of 2018

considering the material on record, by order dated

2/1/2018, has allowed the petition and being aggrieved by

the same, the respondent-husband has presented this

petition.

6. I have heard Smt.Bharati S Hanagandi, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Sri.A.S.Hanmannavar, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

7. Smt.Bharati S Hanagandi, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by

the Family Court is without any proper reason and the

petitioner herein is ever ready to take back the

respondents and therefore, she contended that the

impugned order requires interference in this petition.

8. Per contra Sri.A.S.Hanmannavar, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents sought to justify the

impugned order passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court,

Belagavi.

RPFC No. 100020 of 2018

9. In the light of the submissions advanced by the

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

marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent

was solemnized on 7/3/2005 at Belagavi and in their

wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. Perusal of the finding

would substantiate that the petitioner No.1 lodged a

complaint against the respondent-husband under Section

498(A) of IPC. It is also forthcoming from the records that

the petitioners are residing away from the respondent.

That apart, it is case of the petitioner herein that the

respondent-husband had taken second wife to the

matrimonial home and having three daughters and a son.

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the

fact that the respondent-husband is having immovable

properties and as it is the bounden duty of the petitioner-

husband to take care of his wife and child, I am of the view

that, the finding recorded by the Family Court awarding

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner

No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 is

RPFC No. 100020 of 2018

just and proper and the petitioner herein has not made out

a case for interference of this Court in the impugned order.

In the result, I do not find any merits in the petition.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Vb/-