Karnataka High Court
Veeranna Angadi S/O Devappa @ ... vs Shivaleela Angadi W/O Veeranna on 9 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100044 of 2019
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. 100044 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:
VEERANNA ANGADI
S/O DEVAPPA @ SHIVAPPA
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: EX-SERVICEMAN,
R/O: BELLATTI-582112,
TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C. S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVALEELA ANGADI W/O VEERANNA
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: TABIB LAND, HUBBALLI-580020,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. KUMAR BASAVARAJ ANGADI, S/O VEERANNA
AGE: 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER NEXT FRIEND,
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH SHIVALEELA W/O VEERANNA ANGADI
Digitally signed
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH R/O: TABIB LAND, HUBBALLI-580020,
Date: 2022.06.10
11:47:01 -0700 DIST: DHARWAD.
3. KUMARI VAISHNAVI ANGADI, D/O VEERANNA
AGE: 12 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER NEXT FRIEND,
SHIVALEELA W/O VEERANNA ANGADI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: TABIB LAND, HUBBALLI-580020,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
RPFC No. 100044 of 2019
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
22.02.2019, IN CRL.MISC. NO.355/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBALLI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in
Crl.Misc.No.355 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Family Court', for
brevity) challenging the order dated 22.02.2019, allowing the
petition in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the petition
are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage
between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on
29.04.1998 at Bellati village of Shirahatti Taluk. In their wedlock,
petitioners No.2 and 3 were born. It is the case of the petitioners
that, the respondent was working in the Indian Air Force as
Helicopter Technician and after the birth of the children, the
respondent-husband was not looking after the needs of the
RPFC No. 100044 of 2019
petitioners. Accordingly, due to misunderstanding in their family,
petitioners were constrained to leave the matrimonial home and
separated from the respondent. Hence, the petitioners have filed
Crl.Mis.355/2015 before the Family Court seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance
and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the
claim petition. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was
examined as PW1 and produced 8 documents and the same were
marked as Exs. P1 to P8. On the other hand, respondent was
examined as RW1 and produced 19 documents and the same
were marked as Exs.R1 to R19.
5. The Family Court after considering the material on
record, by its order dated 22.02.2019, directed the respondent -
husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m to petitioner No.1,
Rs.4,000/- p.m. to petitioner No.2 and Rs.3,000/- p.m. to petitioner
No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband
presented this petition.
6. Heard Sri. C. S. Shettar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri. S. K. Kayakmath, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.1. Perused the records.
RPFC No. 100044 of 2019
7. Sri. C. S. Shetar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner herein argued that the maintenance ordered by the
Family Court to the respondents herein is exorbitant without
considering the financial condition of the petitioner herein -
husband. He further invited the attention of this Court to the
judgment and decree passed in M.C.No.21/2016 wherein the
petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against respondent No.1 herein which
came to be allowed by order dated 12.04.2017, directing the
respondent No.1 herein to join the petitioner for leading marital life.
Therefore, Sri. C.S Shettar contended that respondent No.1 herein
is not entitled for maintenance and accordingly, he sought for
setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court. He
also sought for intervention of this Court to the income of the
petitioner herein and accordingly referred to the pension slip and
submitted that, the award of maintenance by the Family Court
requires interference in this petition.
8. Sri. S. K. Kayakmath, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order passed
by the Family Court. He further contended that, the respondents
RPFC No. 100044 of 2019
herein were forced to leave the matrimonial home on account of
the inhumane experience faced by them at the matrimonial home
and therefore, he contended that the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to the petition in
M.C. No.21/2016 cannot be accepted and accordingly, he sought
for dismissal of the petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 married the
respondent on 29.04.1998 and in their wedlock, petitioners No.2
and 3 were born. Undisputably, the respondent-husband was
working as Helicopter Technician in Indian Air Force and perusal of
the finding recorded by the Family Court with regard to point No.1
would indicate that the petitioners were constrained to leave the
matrimonial home on account of the family dispute between the
parties. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the
petitioners have been neglected by the respondent-husband and
accordingly, entitled for maintenance.
10. However, insofar as the quantum of maintenance
granted by the Family Court, It is not in dispute that the petitioner
herein was working as Helicopter Technician in Indian Air Force
RPFC No. 100044 of 2019
and on perusal of the pension slip produced by the petitioner herein
would indicate that the petitioner herein is getting Rs.32,331/- per
month as per the pension slip for the month of December, 2021.
Taking into consideration the fact that there are three dependents
i.e., the respondents herein, I am of the view that, following the law
declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajathi vs C.
Ganesan reported in AIR 1999 SC 2374 and in the case of
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another
reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, merely because the petitioner No.1
- wife has not complied with the judgment and decree in
M.C.No.21/2016, the same cannot be a basis to disturb the well
reasoned order passed by the Family Court.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court be
transmitted to the Family Court for further disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
