Sushila W/O Hanumantappa Pujer vs Hanumantappa S/O Ramappa Pujeri
2022 Latest Caselaw 8520 Kant

                            -1-




                                   RPFC No. 100096 of 2015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
    REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100096 OF 2015 (-)

BETWEEN:


    SMT. SUSHILA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA PUJER
    AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
    R/O: CHIKKAMALLIGWAD
    TALUK AND DISTRICT.DHARWAD



                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J S SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)

AND:


    HANUMANTAPPA S/O RAMAPPA PUJERI
    AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
    R/O KULAGOD, TALUK: GOKAK
    DISTRICT. BELAGAVI



                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE)

      THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:23.04.2015,
IN CRL. MISC. NO.238/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED U/S.125 OF CR.P.C.
                              -2-




                                    RPFC No. 100096 of 2015


     THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in Crl.

Misc. No.238/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Dharwad, challenging the order dated

23.04.2015, allowing the petition in part and directed the

respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- permanent alimony

within two months.

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-wife that, her

marriage was solemnized on 20.05.1981 at Kulagod

village of Gokak taluka and after the marriage, the

respondent used to ill-treat her and as such, the petitioner

made allegation against the respondent. It is further

stated that, the petitioner-wife was constrained to leave

the matrimonial home having not tolerated the physical

RPFC No. 100096 of 2015

and mental harassment meted out to by her. Accordingly,

the petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No.238/2012 on the file of

the Family Court, seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objection contending that,

petitioner-husband has contracted into a second marriage

with Smt. Suvarna and in the said wedlock, the

respondent had two children. It is further stated that,

there was a Panchayat between the petitioner and the

respondent and as such, it was agreed to pay permanent

alimony of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner herein

and therefore, he contended that the said Rs.2,00,000/-

was fixed as permanent alimony and accordingly, he

sought for dismissal of the petition. In order to prove their

case, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and produced 04

documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to P-4. The

respondent has examined 04 witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.4

and produced 08 documents and the same were marked

as Ex.R1 to Ex.R8. The Family Court after considering the

RPFC No. 100096 of 2015

material on record, allowed the petition in part and as

such, directed the respondent to pay a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards permanent

alimony.

5. I have heard Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri. Venkatesh M. Khari, learned counsel for

the respondent.

6. Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner contended that, the Family Court ought not

to have fixed the permanent alimony under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. proceedings. He further contended that, even if it

is admitted for the sake that, the parties have entered into

an agreement, the same cannot be considered as finality

insofar as the dissolution of the relationship, as such.

Accordingly, he argued that the Family Court ought to

have allowed the maintenance in terms of the provisions

contained under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

RPFC No. 100096 of 2015

7. Per contra, Sri. Venkatesh M. Kharvi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent contended that,

there was a Panchayat between the parties and as such, it

was agreed that the respondent herein has to pay

Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and pursuant to the same,

Rs.1,00,000/- was already paid to the petitioner herein

and therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order

passed by the Family Court.

8. In the light of the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in

dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized on 20.05.1981 at Kulagod

village of Gokak taluka. Undisputedly, the parties have no

children. However, it is the case of the respondent that, at

the instance of the petitioner herein, he contracted second

marriage with one Smt. Suvarna and had two children. A

perusal of the record would indicate that, the trial Court

committed a grave error in fixing the permanent alimony

in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is

RPFC No. 100096 of 2015

alien to law. In that view of the matter, without venturing

into their arguments advanced by the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the impugned order passed by

the Family Court requires to be set aside, remanding the

matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, in the

light of the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

However, in view of the fact that, the petitioner herein has

to take care of her basic needs, I am of the view that, the

respondent herein shall pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the

petitioner herein, till the conclusion of the proceedings

before the Family Court.

9. It is also made clear that, the finding recorded

by the Family Court, accepting the agreement between the

parties, is invalid in the eye of law and as such, the

agreement cannot be the basis to decide the matter under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

10. It is well established principle of law by the

Apex Court in the catena of decisions including the recent

one i.e. Rajnesh Vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC

RPFC No. 100096 of 2015

324, that the proceedings under Section 125 is a

summary proceedings to provide immediate relief to the

dependents/petitioners, and in that view of the matter, the

Family Court ought not to have concluded the matter by

fixing the permanent alimony which shows non-application

of mind by the Family Court and accordingly, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed;

(ii) The order dated 23.04.2015 passed in Crl. Misc. No.238/2012 by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Dharwad.

(iii) The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

(iv) It is made clear that, the respondent shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the petitioner herein, from the date of petition, till the conclusion of the proceedings and the Family Court shall conclude the entire

RPFC No. 100096 of 2015

proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH