Karnataka High Court
Surendra K S/O Sidramappa vs Geeta S. Kalal @ Mamata W/O ... on 10 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100087 of 2019
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. 100087 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SURENDRA K S/O SIDRAMAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL ,
R/O NISARGA NILAYA, NETAJI ROAD,
NEW HARSHA LODGE, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST : BALLARI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.D. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H N GULARADDI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GEETA S. KALAL @ MAMATA W/O SURENDRA. K
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O 2776, SHRI NAGAR GARDEN,
BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001
2. CHANDANA D/O SURENDRA K.
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O 2776, SHRI NAGAR GARDEN,
BELAGAVI TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001
SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED
BY RESPONDENT NO.1
...RESPONDENTS
RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.12.2016, IN
-2-
RPFC No. 100087 of 2019
CRL.MISC. NO.377/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BELAGAVI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125
OF CR.P.C.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in
Crl.Misc.No.377 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court,
Belagavi, challenging the order dated 01.12.2016, allowing the
petition in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
petition are referred to with their rank before the Family Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner No.1
married the respondent on 24.04.2004 at Marata Mangal
Karyalaya Trust and having a child aged about 10 years, who
has been arraigned as petitioner No.2 before the Family Court.
It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that, the respondent is not
taking care of the needs of the petitioners and was in the habit
of suspecting the character of petitioner No.1 and as such,
having not tolerated the inhuman treatment of the respondent,
the petitioners have left the matrimonial home on 25.06.2009
RPFC No. 100087 of 2019
and residing separately from the respondent- husband. It is the
case of the petitioners that the respondent is working as a
Government Teacher and has not taken care of the needs of
the family and therefore, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.
377 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, seeking
maintenance.
4. The respondent has not filed objections denying the
averments made in the petition.
5. The Family Court, after considered material on
record, by order dated 01.12.2016, allowed the petition in-part
and directed the respondent to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to
petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.2
and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent has
presented this revision petition.
6. I have heard Sri G.D.Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, who contended that, respondents
themselves have left the matrimonial home and are residing
along with parents of respondent No.1 and therefore, finding
recorded by the Family Court that petitioner has neglected to
RPFC No. 100087 of 2019
maintain the respondents is not correct. Accordingly, he sought
for interference of this court.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully considered
finding recorded by the Family Court, which would indicate that
there is no dispute between the parties with regard to
relationship and petitioner No.2 is born in their wedlock. Taking
into consideration the fact that the petitioners are residing
along with parents of petitioner No.1 and the respondent is
working as a Government Teacher, I am of the view that, it is
duty of the husband to take care of the needs of the
respondents herein accordingly, maintenance awarded by
Family Court is just and proper and does not call for
interference in this revision petition. Accordingly, the revision
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
