Karnataka High Court
Smt. Reshma @ Rashmi W/O. ... vs Shri. Mahantesh S/O. ... on 7 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100013 OF 2018 (-)
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100072 OF 2018
IN RPFC NO.100013/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. RESHMA @ RASHMI W/O. MAHANTESH PATIL
@ HIREGOUDAR, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
D/O. RACHAPPA MURGI, "AMAR KUNJ",
R/O. KONNUR, TQ:NARGUND, GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. MAHANTESH S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR
@ PATIL, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:P.D.O,
R/O. BEVINHAL, TQ:GANGAVATI, DIST:KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. MAHANTESH S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,
1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:16.12.2017, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.193/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125
OF CR.P.C.
IN RPFC NO.100072/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHANTESH S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR @ PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: PDO,
R/O. BEVINAHAL, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL - 583227
.....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RESHMA @ RASHMI W/O. MAHANTESH PATIL @
-2-
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
HIREGOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KONNUR, TQ. NARAGUND, DIST. GADAG, PIN - 582206
.....RESPONDENT
(SMT. PADMAJA S. TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 IN CRL.
MISC. NO.193/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
125 OF CR.P.C.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions were listed before this Court on
06.06.2022 and there was no representation on behalf of
the respondent. Accordingly, in order to provide an
opportunity to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, the matter was adjourned to today. Today
also there is no representation on behalf of the
respondent/husband and accordingly, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner insists for enhancement of the
maintenance ordered by the Family Court in RPFC
No.100013/2018.
2. These petitions are filed by the parties in Crl.
Misc. No.193/2016 on the file of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gadag, challenging the order dated
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
16.12.2017, allowing the petition in part. RPFC
No.100013/2018 is filed by the wife/petitioner seeking
enhancement of the maintenance and RPFC
No.100072/2018 is filed by the husband/respondent,
setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family
Court.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties to this
revision petition are referred to as per their ranking before
the Family Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 12.06.2015 at Sri.Vasavi Kalyan Mantap,
Navali Road, Karatagi town in Gangavati taluk. It is further
stated that, while the wife was residing at the matrimonial
home, the respondent and his family members have
demanded dowry and they used to tease the parents of
the petitioner and therefore, without tolerating inhumane
treatment by the family members of the respondent, the
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
petitioner/wife was constrained to leave the matrimonial
home and residing along with her parents. It is the case of
the petitioner/wife that the respondent is not providing
basic necessities to the petitioner and she is depending
upon the earnings of her parents and accordingly, the
petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No.193/2016 on the file of the
Family Court, seeking maintenance at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per month.
5. After service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed objection to the application filed by
the petitioner/wife, however, not chosen to file objection
to the main petition. In the Family Court, the
petitioner/wife was examined as P.W.1 and she has
produced 11 documents, which came to be marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The respondent was examined as R.W.1
and he has produced 17 documents and the same were
marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.17.
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
6. The Family Court, after considering the material
on record by order dated 16.12.2017 allowed the petition
in part, awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to
the petitioner from the date of petition. Feeling aggrieved
by the award of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, as
on the lower side, the petitioner/wife has presented RPFC
No.100013/2018. The respondent/husband has filed RPFC
No.100072/2018, seeking setting aside the impugned
order passed by the Family Court.
7. I have heard Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, the order of maintenance made by the Family Court
is on the lower side as at the time of proceedings before
the Family Court, the respondent was working as PDO and
the net salary was Rs.25,727/-. She further contended
that, as per the instructions of her client, he has been
promoted and there is an enhancement of salary and she
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
further contended that the petitioner/wife has to take care
of her life and also taking into consideration the fact that
the petitioner/wife has to lead a equal status as of the wife
of the respondent in the society, she contended that, the
monthly maintenance has to be enhanced.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, I have carefully considered the impugned
order and perused the original records.
10. It is not in dispute that, the marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
12.06.2005. It is also forthcoming from the impugned
order that the petitioner/wife left the matrimonial home
and as of now residing with her parents. A perusal of the
records would indicate that, as per Ex.P.2, the net salary
of the respondent/wife is Rs.33,448/- per month. It is also
not in dispute that, he is working as PDO, at Department
of Executive Officers, Taluka Panchayat. It is submission of
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that,
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
recently the respondent/husband has been promoted and
in this regard, the petitioner/wife has made an application
for details of the salary of the husband, however, she was
not able to secure the same.
11. Considering the fact that, as per Ex.P.2, the
salary of the respondent/husband was Rs.33,488/- and
the respondent/husband is having immoveable properties,
I am of the view that, the maintenance is required to be
enhanced taking into consideration the factual aspects in
the light of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case
of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others, reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324 and in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs.
Meena, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353.
12. Accordingly, I am of the view that, the
petitioner is entitled for maintenance at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- per month from the respondent. In the result,
I pass the following:
RPFC No. 100013 of 2018
C/W RPFC No. 100072 of 2018
ORDER
(i) RPFC No.100013/2018 is allowed in part.
(ii) Respondent/husband is directed to pay
monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month
to the petitioner/wife from the date of petition.
(iii) RPFC No.100072/2018 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
