Maharudrappa vs Smt.Sarojini
2022 Latest Caselaw 8557 Kant

                                              -1-




                                                      RPFC No. 100023 of 2020




                    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. 100023 OF 2020 (-)

                   BETWEEN:

                   MAHARUDRAPPA
                   S/O. SHIVRAYAPPA GANIGER
                   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: NIL
                   R/O. BUDARAKATTI, TQ. BAILHONGAL
                   DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   SMT. SAROJINI W/O. MAHARUDRAPPA GANIGER
                   AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                   R/O. BUDARAKATTI, TQ. BAILHONGAL
                   DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
                   (BY SRI. SURESH SHETTAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
Date: 2022.06.14
11:46:42 -0700
                         THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
                   COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
                   19.06.2020, IN CRL.MISC. NO.277/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE
                   PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, 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:
                                     -2-




                                              RPFC No. 100023 of 2020


                                   ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in

Crl.Misc.No.277/2017 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family

Court Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Family Court', for

brevity), allowing the petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this petition

are referred to as per their ranks before the Family Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the marriage

between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on

13.04.1990 at Budarakatti Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi Dist.

as per the Hindu customs. It is further stated that, there were

certain dispute between the parties for trivial issues and

respondent was used to physical assault the petitioner for various

reasons. As such, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and

residing with her parents. Hence the petitioner filed

Crl.Misc.No.277/2017 seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and denied the averments made in the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, petitioner has examined 5

witnesses as PWs1 to 5 and produced 18 documents and the

RPFC No. 100023 of 2020

same were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. On the other hand, the

respondents examined 3 witnesses as RWs1 to 3 and got marked

8 documents as Exs.R1 to R8. The Family Court after considering

the material on record, by order dated 19.06.2020, allowed the

petition in part and directed the respondent to pay monthly

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by

the same, respondent - husband presented this Revision Petition.

6. Heard Sri. K. Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri. Suresh S. Shettammanavar, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.

7. Sri. K. Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contended that, the Family Court has not considered the

income of the parties to the proceedings. He further contended

that, the finding recorded by the Family Court with regard to the

land properties are the ancestral properties of the respondent-

husband and therefore, he contended that the award of

maintenance by the Family Court is without any proper reasons.

8. Per contra, Sri. Suresh S. Shettammanavar, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent contended that, the finding

recorded by the Family Court is just and proper, as the respondent

herein has produced material before the Family Court that the

RPFC No. 100023 of 2020

petitioner herein is owning an irrigated agricultural land to an extent

of 50 acres and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

9. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel

for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by

the Family Court, which envisages the fact that the petitioner got

married to the respondent on 13.04.1990 at Budarakatti Village,

Bailhongal Taluk. Perusal of the records, particularly, Exs.P4 to

P8, would establish the fact that the parties are residing separately.

It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she has to depend upon the

earning of her parents. Taking into consideration the RTC extracts

produced by the petitioner-wife i.e., Exs.P10 to P18, I am of the

view that the award of Rs.5,000/- per month by the Family Court is

proper and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly

petition is rejected. In view of disposal of the main petition,

I.A.1/2022 does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab