Shrikant vs Smt Akshata
2022 Latest Caselaw 8750 Kant

                             -1-




                                    RPFC No. 100075 of 2021




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
       REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100075 OF 2021 (-)

BETWEEN:

    SHRIKANT S/O. KARABASAYYA KABBINAKANTIMATH
    AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O: CHAPPARADAHALLI,
    RATTIHALLI/HIREKERUR-581111,
    TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI.



                                                  ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K. S., ADVOCATE)

AND:


    SMT. AKSHATA W/O. SHRIKANTH KABBINAKANTIMATH,
    AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
    R/O. CHAPPARADAHALLI,
    NOW R/AT. C/O BASAPPAYYA MUDIGOUDRA HIREMATH,
    NAGENDRANAMATTI, HAVERI-581110,
    TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI.



                                                 ...RESPONDENT
(SRI.  HANUMANTHAREDDY         SAHUKAR,       ADVOCATE    FOR
RESPONDENT)

      THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4)     OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT             AND ORDER DATED
09.11.2021, IN CRL.MISC. NO.146/2020,     ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HAVERI,     PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.   1973.
                                -2-




                                      RPFC No. 100075 of 2021


     THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in

Crl. Misc. No.146/2020 on the file of the Family Court,

Haveri in Crl. Misc. No.146/2020, allowing the petition in

part.

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 petitioner before the Family

Court that, the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized on 23.05.2013 at

Chapparadahalli, Rattihalli/Hirekerur taluk, District Haveri

and in wedlock a male child was born to them and

thereafter the said child died. It is further stated in the

petition that, the respondent has started harassing the

petitioner physically and mentally and not providing basic

necessities and therefore, the petitioner-wife also driven

RPFC No. 100075 of 2021

out by the respondent. It is further stated that, in order to

maintain herself, as she is solely dependent on the

earnings of her parents, the petitioner-wife was

constrained to file Crl. Misc. No.146/2020 before the

Family Court, seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed objections.

5. In order to prove their case petitioner was

examined as P.W.1 and produced 11 documents and the

same were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.11. Respondent was

examined as R.W.1 and produced 08 documents and the

same were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8. The Family Court

after considering the material on record, by order dated

09.11.2021 allowed the claim petition in part. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband filed this

petition.

RPFC No. 100075 of 2021

6. I have heard Sri. Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Hanumanthreddy

Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel Sri. Pruthvi K.S., appearing for

the petitioner contended that, the finding recorded by the

Family Court granting maintenance of Rs.8,000/- is

exorbitant and without any basis and accordingly, he

sought for interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, Sri. Hanumanthreddy Sahukar,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to

justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. He

further contended that, the petitioner herein has not

complied with the order passed by this Court on

08.12.2021 and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the

petition.

9. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration, the finding recorded by the Family Court,

RPFC No. 100075 of 2021

there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between

the petitioner and the respondent held on 23.05.2013.

However, taking into account the fact that, there are other

cases filed between the parties and the complaint lodged

by the respondent herein as stated in the petition, I am of

the view that, the petitioner-wife is residing separately

from the respondent-husband and accordingly, the finding

recorded by the Family Court granting maintenance is just

and proper and the petitioner herein is having movable

properties to the extent of 20 acres of irrigation land and

taking into account the Ex.P.5 to P.11 produced before the

Family Court, I am of the view that, no interference is

called for in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is

dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH