Mudimallappa S/O Ranadappa ... vs Smt. Durgavva Alias Mamata W/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8281 Kant

                            -1-




                                    RPFC No. 100024 of 2022




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 07thDAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
    REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100024 OF 2022 (-)
BETWEEN:
    MUDIMALLAPPA S/O RANADAPPA TALAGERI
    AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
    R/O: DEVARAGUDDA-581115
    TQ: RANEBENNUR
    DIST.HAVERI



                                                ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:


    SMT. DURGAVVA @ MAMATA W/O MUDIMALLAPPA
    TALAGERI
    AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
    R/O. DEVARAGUDDA, TQ. RANEBENNUR
    PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
    KURAGUND-581118
    TQ/DIST.HAVERI



                                              ...RESPONDENT
      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
04.10.2021, IN CRL.MISC. NO.60/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.1973.
                             -2-




                                    RPFC No. 100024 of 2022


     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.60/2021 on the file of the Family

Court, Haveri, 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 that, the marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent was

solemnized on 10.04.1999 at Devaragudda village of

Ranebennur taluk and the respondent has not taken

care of the needs of the petitioner and was assaulting

her, demanding dowry and was humiliating her in

front of others and as such she left matrimonial

home and residing with her parents.

RPFC No. 100024 of 2022

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the

respondent/husband is capable of maintaining her,

however, neglecting to maintain her and as such, the

petitioner has filed Crl. Misc. No.60/2021 on the file

of the Family Court, seeking maintenance.

5. After service of notice, the respondent remained

absent. Accordingly, he was placed ex-parte.

6. In order to prove the case, the petitioner/wife was

examined as P.W.1 and she has produced 06

documents and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.6. No evidence was led on the part of the

respondent.

7. The Family Court, after considering the material on

record, by order dated 04.10.2021, allowed the

petition in part and directed the respondent/husband

to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month

to the petitioner/wife from the date of petition.

RPFC No. 100024 of 2022

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

respondent/husband has presented this petition.

8. The postal tracking report stating that, the notice to

respondent is dispatched. But no representation on

behalf of the respondent.

9. I have heard Sri. S.A.Neelopant, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and he contended that,

there is a dispute with regard to the marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent and in

this regard, he referred to Annexures produced along

with the revision petition. He further contended that,

the respondent/husband has been placed ex-parte

before the Family Court and an opportunity be

provided to contest the matter on merits.

10. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully

examined the impugned order, wherein it is not in

RPFC No. 100024 of 2022

dispute that the respondent/husband has been

placed ex-parte before the Family Court.

11. The Family Court has awarded maintenance at the

rate of Rs.9,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife.

Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by

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

petitioner herein, disputing the marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent, I am of the view that,

an opportunity be provided to the petitioner herein to

contest the matter on merits. However, taking into

consideration the fact that the petitioner/wife has

been ordered maintenance by the Family Court at the

rate of Rs.9,000/- per month in the impugned order,

I do not find any acceptable ground to modify the

same, till the conclusion of the proceedings before

the Family Court, after remanding this petition.

Accordingly, the petitioner herein shall pay monthly

maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the

RPFC No. 100024 of 2022

respondent/wife herein till the conclusion of the

proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.60/2021.

12. In the result, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The order dated 04.10.2021 in Crl. Misc.

No.60/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Haveri, is set aside in part.

(iii) The matter is remanded to the Family Court, Haveri for its fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to both the sides.

(iv) It is made clear that, the petitioner herein shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, till the conclusion of the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.60/2022.

(v) Registry is directed to transmit the deposited amount, if any, to the Family Court for appropriate disbursement.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH