Karnataka High Court
Murthujasab Hiremani S/O. ... vs Smt. Hameedabanu W/O. ... on 10 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100032 of 2021
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. 100032 OF 2021 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. MURTHUJASAB HIREMANI S/O. HUSSAINSAB HIREMANI
AGE. 67 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE (NILL)
R/O.HOSUR,
TQ. YALBURGA,
DIST. KOPPAL
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.B.DODDAGOUDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. HAMEEDABANU W/O. MURTHUJASAB HIREMANI
AGE. 41 YEARS,OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HOSUR,TQ. YALBURGA,
NOW RESIDING AT NIRMITI KENDRA,
BAHADDURBANDI ROAD KOPPAL
2. SHYAMID ALI S/O.MURTHUJASAB HIREMANI
AGE. 14 YEARS,MINOR
R/O. HOSUR,TQ. YALBURGA
NOW RESIDING AT NIRMITI KENDRA
BAHADDURBANDI ROAD, KOPPAL
3. AMAN S/O.MURTHUJASAB HIREMANI
AGE. 13 YEARS,
R/O. HOSUR,TQ. YALBURGA
NOW RESIDING AT NIRMITI KENDRA
BAHADDURBANDI ROAD, KOPPAL
-2-
RPFC No. 100032 of 2021
4. ABDUL S/O. MURTHUJASAB HIREMANI
AGE. 13 YEARS,R/O. HOSUR,
TQ. YALBURGA,NOW RESIDING AT NIRMITI KENDRA
BAHADDURBANDI ROAD, KOPPAL
(THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE THE MINORS AND
THEY ARE R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AHAMED ALI AHIMANSHAH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO 4 ARE MINOR R/BY R1)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2020, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.73/2020, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL, 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
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in
Crl.Misc.No.73/2020, challenging the order dated
30/11/2020, 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.
RPFC No. 100032 of 2021
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is
the wife of the respondent and they have three children in
their wedlock. It is the case of the petitioners that, the
respondent was not taking care of the needs of their family
and he was addicted to alcohol and gambling and as such
started abusing them without any reason and accordingly
Panchayath was called, however, no settlement was made.
The Petitioners having not tolerated the ill-treatment
meted out by the respondent-husband, petitioner No.1 left
the matrimonial home and started residing with her
parents. Hence, petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.73/2020,
seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, respondent remained absent
and placed ex-parte. In order to prove their case, the
petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and produced five
documents and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5.
The Family Court, after considering the material on record,
by order dated 30/11/2020, allowed the petition in part
and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of
RPFC No. 100032 of 2021
Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/-
each to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. Feeling aggrieved by the
order of the Family Court, the respondent-husband has
presented this petition.
5. I have heard Sri.S.B.Doddagouda, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri.Ahamed Ali Rahimanshah, learned
counsel for the respondents.
6. Sri.S.B.Doddagouda, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that there is dispute with regard to
the relationship between the parties and therefore, he
contended that the said aspect has to be considered in this
petition.
7. Per contra, Sri.Ahamed Ali Rahimanshah, learned
counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned
order passed by the Family Court.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the
impugned order would indicate that, respondent-husband
RPFC No. 100032 of 2021
was remained absent and he placed ex-parte before the
Family Court. In that view of the matter, I am of the view
that, the Family Court was justified in allowing the petition,
by granting maintenance as per the impugned order.
However, taking into consideration the argument advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view
that, petitioner herein-husband was placed ex-parte and in
order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner herein-
husband, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Family
Court for fresh consideration, after affording reasonable
opportunity to the parties. However, it is made clear that
the petitioner herein-husband shall pay maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 herein and
Rs.1,500/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 as ordered by
the Family Court from the date of the petition till the
conclusion of the proceedings in Crl.Misc. No.73/2020.
In the result, I pass the following:
RPFC No. 100032 of 2021
ORDER
i) Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii) Order dated 30/11/2020 in Crl.Misc.
No.73/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Koppal is
set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
Family Court for fresh disposal in accordance with
law taking into fact that the petitioner herein-
husband shall pay maintenance as stated above.
iii) In view of the fact that learned counsel for the
parties have represented through their counsel and
as such parties are directed to appear before the
Family Court on 28/6/2022 without awaiting further
notice from the Family Court. In such event, the
Family Court shall conclude the entire case within six
months from the date of the receipt of certified copy
this order.
RPFC No. 100032 of 2021
iv) It is made clear that the petitioner herein shall
pay maintenance as stated above till conclusion of
the proceedings.
v) Amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the
Family Court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
