Basappa S/O Siddappa Mutawadi vs Smt. Sheetal W/O Basappa Mutawadi
2022 Latest Caselaw 8265 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8265 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 June, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Basappa S/O Siddappa Mutawadi vs Smt. Sheetal W/O Basappa Mutawadi on 7 June, 2022

Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij

                            -1-




                                   RPFC No. 100110 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. 100110 OF 2018 (-)

BETWEEN:


     BASAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MUTAWADI
     AGE: 38 YEARS,
     OCC: EX.SERVICE MAN,
     R/O: WADERHATTI,
     TQ: GOKAK,
     DIST: BELAGAVI-591224



                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.   SMT. SHEETAL W/O BASAPPA MUTAWADI
     AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: C/O. SUREKHA KURBAR,
     SUBASH GALLI, ASTE VILLAGE,
     TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590016

2.   KUMARI. GAYATRI D/O BASAPPA MUTAWADI,
     AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
     R/O: C/O. SUREKHA KURBAR,
     SUBASH GALLI, ASTE VILLAGE,
     TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590016, SINCE MINOR,
     REPRESENTED BY
     MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.

3.   KUMARI KAVERI D/O BASAPPA MUTAWADI,
     AGE: 3, 1/2 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                              -2-




                                    RPFC No. 100110 of 2018


    R/O: C/O. SUREKHA KURBAR,
    SUBASH GALLI, ASTE VILLAGE,
    TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590016
    SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
    MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.



                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 MINORS, REPTD. BY R1)

      THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:27.08.2018,
IN CRL.MISC. NO.192/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BELAGAVI, 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.192/2016 on the file of the Family Court at

Belagavi, challenging the order dated 27.08.2018 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 petitioners before the

Family Court that, the petitioner No.1 married respondent

RPFC No. 100110 of 2018

on 09.04.2009 at Belagavi, as per their customs. It is the

case of the petitioners that, in the wedlock, two children

were born and they are petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is

further stated that, in the claim petition that, after few

months of the marriage, the respondent and their family

members were started harassing the petitioner and were

not pestering the petitioner No.1 to get dowry and

accordingly, the petitioner No.1 was forced to leave the

matrimonial home and residing along with her parents. It

is further stated in the petition that the respondent was

serving as a Sipai in the Indian Army of Madras Regiment

and therefore, it is the duty of the respondent/husband to

take care of the needs of the petitioners. Accordingly, the

petitioners have filed Crl. Misc. No.192/2016 before the

Family Court, seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objection and contested the

matter on merits. In order to substantiate their case, the

petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and examined an

RPFC No. 100110 of 2018

independent witness as P.W.2 and produced 07 documents

and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The

respondent has not stepped into the witness box and not

marked any documents to substantiate the case. The

Family Court after considering the material on record, by

its order dated 27.08.2018, allowed the petition in part

and directed the respondent/husband to pay monthly

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioners each. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, the respondent has presented this

petition.

5. I have heard Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant,

learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mahantesh S.

Hiremath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

6. Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, invited the attention of the

Court to the fact that, the respondent/husband was

working as a Sipai in the Indian Army and he was not able

to contest the matter on merits by producing relevant

material before the Family Court to determine the

RPFC No. 100110 of 2018

maintenance. He further contended that, if an opportunity

be provided to the respondent/husband, the same would

reach the ends of justice.

7. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, sought to

justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

8. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful

consideration of the material on record, it would indicate

that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship

between the parties. On perusal of the record would

further indicate that, the petitioner No.1 is residing with

her parents along with two children, namely petitioner

Nos.2 and 3. On careful consideration of the impugned

order would indicate that the respondent has filed written

statement, however, on account of the factual aspects on

record, was not able to adduce evidence before the Family

Court. In that view of the matter, in order to provide an

opportunity to the petitioner herein, I find force in the

RPFC No. 100110 of 2018

submission made by the learned counsel Sri. Shriharsh A.

Neelopant, appearing for the petitioner, as it is a fit case

to remand the matter to the Family Court for afresh

consideration.

9. However, I find force in the submission made

by Sri. Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent No.1 that the order of maintenance

made by the Family court requires to be continued till the

conclusion of the proceedings in the Family Court. It is

contended by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner herein that the respondent/husband has

attained superannuation and he is having pension of

Rs.19,470/- per month and therefore, I am of the view

that the petitioner herein shall pay monthly maintenance

of Rs.10,000/- in all to the petitioners before the Family

Court, till the conclusion of the proceedings before the

Family Court. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

In the result, the following:

RPFC No. 100110 of 2018

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The order dated 27.08.2018 passed in Crl.

Misc. No.192/2016 by the Family Court, Belagavi is set aside and remitted the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration.

(iii) The petitioner herein is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in all, to the respondents herein, till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Family Court.

(iv) Since the parties are represented through their Advocates, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 27.06.2022 without awaiting for any further notice from the Family Court.

(v) The Family Court is directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.