Karnataka High Court
Shri.Prabhakar Sahadev Kurane vs Smt.Priyanka W/O Prabhakar ... on 14 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100117 of 2019
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. 100117 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. PRABHAKAR SAHADEV KURANE
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PARVATI NAGAR, KANGARALI B.K.,
BELAGAVI-590010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH P PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. PRIYANKA W/O PRABHAKAR KURANE
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: C/O ANANT GOVINDA TAHASILDAR,
SAIRAJ COLONY, RUKMINI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590016.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
14.09.2018, IN CRL.MISC. NO.60/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
-2-
RPFC No. 100117 of 2019
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.60/2017 on the file of the Family Court,
Belagavi, challenging the order dated 14.08.2018 passed
in Crl. Misc. No.60/2017, 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-wife that, she got
married to the respondent on 10.05.2014 at Bantar
Bhavan, New Gandhi Nagar, Belagavi and thereafter due
to the rift in the family the petitioner was constrained to
leave the matrimonial home and started residing with her
parents and as such, the petitioner-wife has filed Crl. Misc.
No.60/2017 on the file of the Family Court, seeking
maintenance.
RPFC No. 100117 of 2019
4. On service of notice, the respondent-husband
entered appearance and filed detailed objection
contending that, the petitioner-wife has gone to the
parental home to celebrate the festival of Deepavali and
thereafter, she has not returned to the matrimonial home
and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. In order to establish his case, the petitioner has
examined himself as P.W.1 and produced 2 documents
and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. No
evidence is led on behalf of the respondent.
6. The trial Court after considering the material on
record, by order dated 14.09.2018, directed the
respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband
has presented this petition.
7. Sri. Santosh P. Pujar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner
herein/husband has no means to pay the maintenance and
RPFC No. 100117 of 2019
accordingly, the trial Court has not assessed the payment
of maintenance with cogent reasons and accordingly,
sought for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Sri. Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/wife sought to justify the
impugned order passed by the Family Court and submitted
that, the petition requires to be dismissed in limine.
9. It is not in dispute that, the marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
10.05.2014 at Belagavi, and the finding recorded by the
Family Court would indicate that, the petitioner-wife is
residing away from the respondent-husband. It has also
come in the finding that the respondent-husband has
neglected to take care of the needs of the wife. In that
view of the matter, I am of the view that, the contention
raised by the petitioner herein that the respondent-
husband has no means to pay maintenance cannot be
accepted as it is on the part of the husband to look after
the needs of the wife and to provide basic necessity in
RPFC No. 100117 of 2019
terms of the scope and ambit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In
the result, I do not find any material illegality or perversity
in the order passed by the Family Court and accordingly,
the same is hereby confirmed.
10. Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed
as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
