G.Surendra Babu vs Indira Surendra Babu
2022 Latest Caselaw 8480 Kant

                            -1-




                                     RPFC No. 100031 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. 100031 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:
     G. SURENDRA BABU
     S/O V. GOVINDA
     AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
     R/O: DOOR NO.69
     RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, 1ST STAGE,
     HUSSAIN NAGAR, NEAR AUTO STAND
     PATEL NAGAR, BALLARI-583101


                                                ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G K HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.   INDIRA SURENDRA BABU D/O V. ERANNA
     AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYED
     R/O: SHASTTRI NAGAR, II CROSS
     NEAR RELIANCE TOWER, NEAR
     S.P. CIRCLE, BALLARI-583101

2.   RAJA AKHILESH BABU S/O. G. SURENDRA BABU
     AGE: 4 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED
     BY HIS MOTHER NEXT FRIEND
     INDIRA SURENDRA BABU
     AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYED,
     R/O SHASTRI NAGAR, II CROSS
     NEAR RELIANCE TOWER, NEAR
     S.P. CIRCLE, BALLARI-583101

                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
                             -2-




                                   RPFC No. 100031 of 2019


     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.02.2019, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.191/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY 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.191/2017 on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, at Ballari in Crl. Misc. No.191/2017, allowing

the petition in part.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this

Revision Petition are that, the petitioner No.1 claims to be

the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their

marriage was solemnized on 02.06.2013, at Ballari. It is

further stated that, in their wedlock a child was born on

17.04.2015 and the said child has been arraigned as

petitioner No.2 in the petition. It is the case of the

petitioner No.1 that, at the time of the marriage the

respondent was working at Malaysia. It is further stated

RPFC No. 100031 of 2019

that, the petitioner No.1 was not happy in the matrimonial

home as there is a dispute between the family members of

the respondent and the petitioner No.1 on trivial issues

and accordingly, the petitioner left the matrimonial home

and residing along with her parents. Hence, the petitioner

filed Crl. Misc. No.191/2017 on the file of the Family

Court, seeking maintenance.

3. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying

the averments made in the petition.

4. The Family Court after considering the material

on record, by order dated 05.02.2019 allowed the petition

in part and directed the respondent therein to pay

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month each to the

petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

respondent/husband has filed this present petition.

RPFC No. 100031 of 2019

5. I have heard Sri. C.S.Shettar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Shivaraj Hiremath,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Sri. C.S.Shettar, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent/husband contended that, the Family Court

has not properly considered the financial aspects of the

respondent/husband and therefore the award of

Rs.4,000/- per month each to the petitioners by the

Family Court, requires interference in this petition. He also

submitted that, the respondent has no means to pay the

same and therefore, he sought for setting aside the

impugned order passed by the Family Court.

7. Per contra, Sri. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned

counsel for the petitioner No.1 supports the impugned

order passed by the Family Court.

8. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the fact that the marriage between the

RPFC No. 100031 of 2019

petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on

02.06.2013, at Ballari and the petitioner No.2 is the child

born in their wedlock, there is no dispute with regard to

the relationship between the parties.

9. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Family

Court would indicate that, there were certain dispute

between the husband and wife as the petitioner No.1

alleges harassment meted out by her from the family

members of the respondent. Accordingly, she is residing

along with her parents.

10. Looking into the factual aspects of the case, I

am of the view that, the Family Court after considering the

entire material on record in detail, arrived at a conclusion

that the respondent/husband has studied M.Tech., and he

was working in HCL as Software Engineer at Bengaluru

and thereafter, he moved to Malaysia for higher salary and

therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioners herein have became destitute on account of the

fact that they are away from matrimonial home, I am of

RPFC No. 100031 of 2019

the view that the award of maintenance by the Family

Court is just and proper and does not call for any

interference in this petition.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH