Karnataka High Court
Ravindra S/O. R Venkatanarayana vs Smt R Sreelakshmi W/O. R Ravindra on 10 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100146 of 2017
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. 100146 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
RAVINDRA S/O. R VENKATANARAYANA
HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O. DOOR NO.12/4/584, ADARSH NAGAR,
ANANTHAPURA-510051,
STATE OF ANDRAPRADESH
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B S SANGATI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT R SREELAKSHMI W/O. R RAVINDRA
R/O. DOOR NO.24, WARD NO.19, ANANTHAPUR COLONY,
IIIRD CROSS, S N PET, BALLARI-583010
...RESPONDENT
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
03.05.2017, IN CRL.MISC.NO.261 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C
-2-
RPFC No. 100146 of 2017
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. 261 of 2016 on the file of the Principal
Judge, Family Court at Bellary, challenging the order
dated 03.05.2017, 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. It is the case of the petitioner that the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 12.12.2013 at Mantralayam and
thereafter, it is stated in the petition that the respondent
was taken care of the petitioner for few days and
thereafter, the family members of the respondent started
demanding for dowry and in pursuance of the same, the
petitioner left matrimonial home. It is the case of the
petitioner that it is difficult for her to lead the normal life
RPFC No. 100146 of 2017
as her father is a cardiac patient and, therefore, she has
filed Crl.Misc.No.261 of 2016 on the file of the Family
Court, seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objections denying the
petition averments.
5. In order to establish their case, the petitioner-
wife got examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and
produced 6 documents and same were marked as Exs.P1
to P6. The respondent-husband examined himself as
RW1 and not adduced any evidence.
6. The Family Court, after considered material on
record by its order dated 03.05.2017, allowed the
petition in-part and directed the respondent to pay
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the same, respondent has presented
this revision petition.
RPFC No. 100146 of 2017
7. Sri. B.S. Sangati, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, contended that the Family Court has
not considered the fact that the petitioner-wife herself
left the house of the respondent-husband and therefore,
award of maintenance is required to be interfered with in
this petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the finding
recorded by the Family Court, wherein, it is not in
dispute with regard to the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent, as the same was solemnized
on 12.12.2013 at Mantralayam and thereafter, certain
family disputes arose between the parties and as such, it
is alleged by the petitioner-wife that there was demand
for dowry from the respondent and accordingly, she
started residing with her parents. Taking into
consideration of the fact that, the petitioner-wife is
residing away from the respondent-husband, I am of the
view that maintenance of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the
RPFC No. 100146 of 2017
Family Court is in accordance with the law as declared by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima
Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC
2025. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and
accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the revision petition, IA No.1
of 2017, does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
