Smt.Jyotsna W/O Rohit Kalaskar vs Shri.Rohit S/O Chandrkant ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8526 Kant

                                -1-




                                      RPFC No. 100108 of 2019
                                  C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OFJUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

       REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100108 OF 2019 C/W.
         REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100125 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.   ROHIT S/O CHANDRAKANT KALASKAR
     AGE: 37 YEARS,
     OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
     R/O 13/1,K M GAIKWAD CHAWL,
     TABIB LAND,2ND CROSS, HUBBALLI,
     TQ: HUBBALLI,DIST: DHARWAD.


                                                 ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D.M.MALLI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SMT.JYOTSNA W/O ROHIT KALASKAR
     AGE: 34 YEARS,OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
     R/O: OLD SBI COLONY,MADIHAL, DHARWAD,
     PRESENTLY R/AT:C/O SAMBHAJIRAO B. KODAGANUR,
     PLOT NO.38, SY.NO.64,SANGOLLI RAYANNA NAGAR,
     TEJASHWINI NAGAR,TQ DHARWAD,
     DIST: DHARWAD.

2.   KUMAR RITWIJ S/O ROHIT KALASKAR
     AGE: 8 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: OLD SBI COLONY,MADIHAL, DHARWAD,
     PRESENTLY R/AT:C/O SAMBHAJIRAO B. KODAGANUR,
     PLOT NO.38, SY.NO.64,SANGOLLI RAYANNA NAGAR,
     TEJASHWINI NAGAR,TQ DHARWAD,
                               -2-




                                    RPFC No. 100108 of 2019
                                C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019


     DIST: DHARWAD.
     SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
     NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
     RESPONDENT NO.1.



                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. P.S.TADAPATRI, ADV., FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

       RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR R/BY RESPONDENT NO.1)

       THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.09.2019, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.16/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125(1) OF CR.P.C.

IN REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100125 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT.JYOTSNA W/O ROHIT KALASKAR
     AGE.35 YEARS,OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE
     R/O OLD SBI COLONY,MADIHAL
     DHARWAD



                                                ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.P.S.TADAPATRI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SHRI.ROHIT S/O CHANDRKANT KALASKAR
     AGE.37 YEARS,OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE
     R/O # 13/1,K.M. GAIKWAD CHAWL
     TABIB LAND,2ND CROSS,HUBBALLI
                                   -3-




                                        RPFC No. 100108 of 2019
                                    C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019


                                                     ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.D.M.MALLI.,ADVOCATE)

       THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:23.09.2019,
IN CRL.MISC. NO.16/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125(1) OF CR.P.C.

       THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

These Revision Petitions are arising out of the order dated

23/9/2019 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Dharwad in

Crl.Misc.No.16/2015. RPFC.No.100108/2019 is filed by the

respondent-husband, seeking setting aside of the impugned

order passed by the Family Court. RPFC.No.100125/2019 is filed

by the petitioner No.1-wife, seeking maintenance.

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 petitioners before the Family Court

that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the

respondent was solemnized on 24/5/2010 as per the Hindu

customs at Dharwad and in their wedlock, a child was born

RPFC No. 100108 of 2019 C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019

namely petitioner No.2 on 8/8/2012. It is further averred in the

claim petition that the respondent ill-treated the first petitioner

and certain allegations were made by the respondent against

the petitioner No.1, which consigned the petitioner No.1 to

leave the matrimonial home and there were certain Panchayath

were also held to re-consign their relationship, however, the

same has not yield any fruit and accordingly, the petitioners left

the matrimonial home and residing separately. Hence,

petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.16/2015 on the file of the

Family Court seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance and

filed detailed objections contending that even after the marriage

he allowed the petitioner No.1 to continue her MBA course and

she has completed MBA graduation. He further contended that,

allegations made against the petitioner is evasive in nature are

baseless and therefore, he contended that as she had

completed MBA and she is working and accordingly, petitioner

No.1 is not entitled for maintenance. He further contended that

the 2nd petitioner is also not entitled for maintenance as a child

is in the custody of petitioner No.2. In order to prove their case,

RPFC No. 100108 of 2019 C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019

the petitioner examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and

produced thirty eight documents and the same were marked as

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38. The respondent was examined as RW.1 and

produced two documents and the same were marked as EX.R.1

to EX.R.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on

record, by order dated 23/9/2019, rejected the claim made by

the 1st petitioner, however, awarded maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner and feeling

aggrieved by the same, petitioners have presented

RPFC.No.100125/2019.

5. I have heard Smt.P.S.Tadapatri, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-wife and Sri.D.M.Malli, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-husband.

6. Sri.D.M.Malli, learned counsel for the respondent-

husband contended that the Family Court rightly rejected the

petition against the petitioner No.1-wife on the ground that the

petitioner No.1 is a MBA graduate and she was working at

Human Capital Solution Firm and getting salary of Rs.11,071/-

as per Ex.R.1 and accordingly, he submits that the finding

recorded by the Family Court with regard to petitioner No1 is

RPFC No. 100108 of 2019 C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019

just and proper. However, in respect of the maintenance to the

child, he argued that the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- is on the

higher side and therefore, he sought for interference in this

petition.

7. Per contra, Smt.P.S.Tadapatri, learned counsel for

petitioner No.1-wife contended that reasons assigned by the

Family Court, declining to award maintenance to the wife is

without any substance and no reasons have been given in this

regard.

8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties, I have carefully considered the

impugned order. It is not in dispute that the marriage between

the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on

24/5/2010 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 born. It is also

forthcoming from the records that petitioner No.1 is a MBA

graduate. The respondent has taken plea as per Ex.R.1-

statement of accounts that the petitioner No.1-wife was working

at Human Capital Solution Firm. In this regard, I have carefully

considered the finding recorded by the Family Court. The

statement of accounts is only for three months, which discloses

RPFC No. 100108 of 2019 C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019

that Rs.11,071/-, Rs.13,200/- was credited to the account of

petitioner No.1. However, the same cannot be a basis to arrive

at a conclusion that petitioner No.1 is working in the

aforementioned firm. If petitioner No.1 is working in the said

firm, the respondent ought to have produced the relevant

documents from the firm to establish that petitioner No.1 is

working in the aforementioned firm. Therefore, only taking into

consideration of the statement of accounts, which shows credit

of amount to the account of petitioner No.1, cannot be a basis

to deny the maintenance to the petitioner No.1-wife. In that

view of the matter, I am of the view that, to meet the ends of

justice, Rs.10,000/- be awarded as monthly maintenance to

petitioner No.1 as the finding recorded by the Family Court at

paragraph No.34 would indicate that the respondent-husband is

running independent coaching classes and he is paying income

tax returns. In that view of the matter, awarding of

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-child

is just and proper by the Family Court and accordingly, the

same is confirmed. However, the finding recorded by the Family

Court declining to award maintenance to the wife is hereby set

aside and accordingly, the respondent-husband is directed to

RPFC No. 100108 of 2019 C/w. RPFC.No.100125 of 2019

pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the

petitioner No.1-wife.

In view of the observations made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

i) RPFC.No.100125/2019 is allowed in part and

RPFC.No.100108/2019 is dismissed.

ii) The respondent-husband is directed to pay

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the

petitioner No.1-wife from the date of the petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Vb/-