Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekhar S/O. Prabhakar ... vs Taramathi W/O. Prabhakar Barker on 9 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100037 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100037 OF 2021 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. PRABHAKAR BARKER
AGED 44 YEARS,
OCC SERVICE,
R/O. SRI. C.S. PATIL BOYS
HIGH SCHOOL,
KC RANI ROAD, GADAG
TQ AND DIST GADAG-582101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TARAMATHI W/O. PRABHAKAR BARKER
AGE 67 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURIST
R/O. BETAGERI
TEGGINPET
TQ AND DIST GADAG-582102
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.S.PATIL AND S.V.SAJJANSHETTAR.,ADVOCATES)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
05.04.2021 IN CRL.MISC. NO.239/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2-
RPFC No. 100037 of 2021
PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, GADAG,PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the respondent in
Crl.Misc.No.239/2019 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family
Court, Gadag, challenging the order dated 05/04/2021,
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 the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is the
mother of the respondent and her husband is no more. It is
further case of the petitioner that, her husband was working as
a teacher and died during his service and as such she is getting
pension of Rs.9,000/- per month. It is further stated in the
petition that the respondent- son has got job on compassionate
ground after the death of her husband and the respondent is
working at C.S.Patil, Boys High School, Gadag as a clerk. It is
the case of the petitioner that, it is insufficient for her to lead
RPFC No. 100037 of 2021
life with pension of Rs.9,000/- per month as she requires more
money for medical expenses and thereby she made a claim to
the respondent-son, however, he has neglected to maintain the
petitioner-mother and accordingly, the petitioner has filed
Crl.Misc. No.239/2019.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance and
filed detailed objections contending that his brothers-
Gangadhar and Prabhakar had instituted a suit in
O.S.No.127/2019 seeking partition and the said suit is pending
consideration before the trial Court. It is further contended in
the objections statement that the respondent has to take care
of his family and therefore, denied averments made in the
petition.
5. In order to prove their case, petitioner was examined as
PW.1 and produced four documents and the same were marked
as EX.P.1 to EX.P.4. On the other hand, respondent-son has not
adduced any evidence before the Family Court. The Family
Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated
05/04/2021 granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to
RPFC No. 100037 of 2021
the petitioner-mother and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
respondent-son has presented this petition.
6. I have heard Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.S.Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
7. Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/-
per month to the respondent herein is without any basis and it
is on the higher side as the respondent herein is getting pension
of Rs.9,000/- per month and accordingly, he sought for
interference of this Court. He further contended that no
opportunity was given to the respondent to adduce evidence
before the Family Court.
8. Per contra, Sri.S.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by
the Family Court.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, the
petitioner herein has got job on compassionate ground on
account of death of his father. However, main ground urged by
RPFC No. 100037 of 2021
the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the
respondent-mother is getting pension of Rs.9,000/- per month.
Having taking into account the consideration of the fact that it is
duty of the children to look after the parents, "Mother is the
dearest one in the Earth" and having neglecting the mother and
getting the appointment on compassionate ground on account
of the death of his father, the respondent herein ought not to
have presented this petition challenging the order dated
5/4/2001 in Crl.Misc.No.239/2019 and accordingly, taking into
consideration the reasons assigned by the Family Court, I am of
the view that, the Prl. Judge, Family Court has considered the
entire aspect of the matter including the age of the mother as
65 years as well as requirement of medical treatment for the
age old aliments and in that view of the matter, taking into
consideration Ex.P.1 produced to the respondent herein before
the Family Court, I am of the view that the petition requires to
be dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the petitioner
herein to the respondent-mother.
10. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no opportunity was given to him to adduce
evidence. Undisputedly, the petition was filed by the mother in
RPFC No. 100037 of 2021
the year 2019 and petition came to be disposed of in the year
2021. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is working
as a clerk at C.S.Patil, Boys High School, K.C.Rani Road, Gadag
and therefore, grounds urged by the petitioner herein that no
opportunity has been given to him to adduce evidence cannot
be accepted. Taking into consideration the law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions particularly with
regard to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Abhilasha V/s Prakash reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355, wherein it
is held that the purpose of summary proceedings under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. is to be provide with immediate relief to the
applicant and since respondent herein is aged about 65 years,
has approached the Family Court seeking maintenance from the
hands of petitioner herein-son, who got appointed on
compassionate ground on account of death of his father, I do
not find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that
petition deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, I pass the following:
RPFC No. 100037 of 2021
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-
payable by the petitioner-son to the respondent-mother within
four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
ii) The Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Gadag is hereby
directed to recover the arrears of maintenance, if any, from the
salary of the petitioner and ensure that the respondent-mother
acknowledge the same.
iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy this order to the
Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Gadag for necessary
action in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
