Karnataka High Court
Kumari.Hema vs Sri.B.K. Shankrayya on 10 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100161 of 2016
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. 100161 OF 2016 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARI. HEMA D/O B.K. SHANKRAYYA,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KESHAVANAGAR, DHARWAD-03.
MINOR, R/BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
PETITIONER NO.3.
2. KUMAR VIJAY S/O B.K. SHANKRAYYA,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KESHAVANAGAR, DHARWAD-03.
MINOR, R/BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER
PETITIONER NO.3.
3. SMT. DHANALAXMI W/O B.K. SHANKRAYYA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KESHAVANAGAR,
DHARWAD-03.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SAGAR S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.S R HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. B.K. SHANKRAYYA S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBALI,
TQ: TIPATOOR, DIST: TUMAKUR-572201.
-2-
RPFC No. 100161 of 2016
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M M KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:05.10.2016,
IN CRL.MISC. NO.17/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, 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 Petitioners in Crl.
Misc. No.17/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dharwad, challenging the order dated 05.10.2016,
granting maintenance of a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the
petitioner No.3 and Rs.600/- each to the petitioner Nos.1
and 2.
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 petitioners that, the
marriage between the respondent and the petitioner No.3
RPFC No. 100161 of 2016
was solemnized on 25.11.1999 and in their wedlock,
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were born. It is the allegation made
by the petitioners that, the respondent has contracted
second marriage with one Smt. Kala and petitioners were
constrained to leave the matrimonial home. Hence, the
petitioners have filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
in Crl. Misc. No.17/2014.
4. On service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement. The
Family Court by its impugned order, ordered for
maintenance as stated above.
5. The petitioners have examined two witnesses as
P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 16 documents and the same
were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. The respondent was
examined as R.W.1 and produced 10 documents and the
same were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.10. By impugned
order dated 05.10.2016, the Family Court granted
Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner No.3 and Rs.600/- to
RPFC No. 100161 of 2016
petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have presented this petition.
6. I have heard Sri. Sagar S. Hegde, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.
M.M.Khannur, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
7. Taking into consideration the fact that, there is
no dispute with regard to the relationship between the
parties and after examining the finding recorded by the
Family Court, I am of the view that, it is the duty of the
husband to look after the wife and children and as such,
taking into consideration of the fact that, the father of the
respondent herein is having Tractor and Trailor apart from
having land properties. In that view of the matter, the
respondent herein be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to
the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, respectively. The petitioner No.2
has attained age of majority. However, it is made clear
that, the respondent herein is directed to pay maintenance
to the petitioner No.2 till the date of attaining the age of
RPFC No. 100161 of 2016
majority, in terms of the order passed by the Family
Court.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
