Sri. Anathareddy S/O Nagireddy vs Smt. G. Saritha @ Savitha W/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8869 Kant

                             -1-




                                    RPFC No. 100141 of 2017




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

       REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100141 OF 2017 (-)


BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. ANATHAREDDY S/O NAGIREDDY,
     AGE: 34 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
     R/O:D. KAGGALLU VILLAGE, BALLARI,
     TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.
     PIN CODE:583101.

                                                ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAVANT KAMBALI., FOR SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.   SMT. G. SARITHA @ SAVITHA W/O ANANTHAREDDY,
     AGE: 29 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     D/O LATE CHANDRAREDDY,
     R/O: MUSHTAGATTA ROAD,
     BEHIND RAJASHEKAR GOUDS HOUSE,
     KURUGODU POST,BALLARI DISTRICT.-583101.

2.   NANDA KISHORE REDDY S/O ANANTHREDDY,
     AGE: 4 YEARS,OCC: NIL,
     R/O: MUSHTAGATTA ROAD,
     BEHIND RAJASHEKAR GOUDS HOUSE,
     KURUGODU POST,BALLARI DISTRICT-583101,
     MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER NEXT FRIEND
     SMT.SARITHA I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1.
                                -2-




                                      RPFC No. 100141 of 2017


3.   NAKSHATRA D/O ANANTHAREDDY,
     AGE: 16YEARS,OCC: NIL,
     R/O: MUSHTAGATTA ROAD,
     BEHIND RAJASHEKAR GOUDS HOUSE,
     KURUGODU POST,BALLARI DISTRICT-583101,
     MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
     NEXT FRIEND SMT.SARITHA I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VIJAY S KOUJALAGI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
      R2 AND R3 ARE MINOR R/BY R1)

      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE      FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER          DATED
22/8/2017 IN CRL.MISC.NO.284/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE    FAMILY
COURT, BALLARI, PARTY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED        UNDER
SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.

     THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in

Crl.Misc.No.284/2016 on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'the Family

Court', for brevity), challenging the order dated

22.08.2017, allowing the petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this

Revision Petition are referred to with their ranks before the

Family Court.

RPFC No. 100141 of 2017

3. It is the case of the petitioners before the

Family Court that, petitioner No.1 married the respondent

on 12.03.2012 at Sri.Ramalingeshwara Temple, Dammuru

village and in their wedlock, petitioners No.2 and 3 were

born. It is further stated in the claim petition that, after

the marriage, the respondent was pestering the petitioners

for dowry and accordingly, the first petitioner left the

matrimonial home and residing with her parents along

with the children.

4. It is the case of the first petitioner that, she is

an illiterate woman and she is not able to maintain herself

and to take care of two children. Accordingly, the

petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.284/2016 on the file of the

Family Court seeking maintenance.

5. On service of notice, respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objections stating that he

has never neglected his wife and children. It is also stated

that the respondent is doing agricultural coolie work and

RPFC No. 100141 of 2017

used to earn only Rs.5,000/- per month and it is difficult

for him to pay maintenance.

6. In order substantiate their case, petitioner No.1

was examined herself as PW1 and produced 33 documents

and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P33. The

respondent was examined himself as RW1 and produced 7

documents, which were marked as Exs.R1 to R7.

7. The Family Court after considering the material

on record by its order dated 22.08.2017, directed the

respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the

petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent

filed this Revision Petition.

8. I have heard Sri. Jayavant Kambali, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vijay S.

Koujalagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Perused the records.

9. Sri. Jayavant Kambali, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner herein submitted that the

RPFC No. 100141 of 2017

petitioners themselves have left the matrimonial home and

therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for maintenance.

He further contended that the respondent - husband has

no means to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the

petitioners and accordingly, he sought for interference in

the impugned order.

10. Per contra, Sri.Vijay S. Koujalagi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent, sought to justify the

impugned order passed by the Family Court.

11. In the light of the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into

account the records produced by the Registry, it is not in

dispute that the marriage between the first petitioner and

the respondent was solemnized on 12.03.2012 at

Dammuru Village and in their wedlock, petitioners No.2

and 3 were born. A perusal of the finding recorded by the

Family Court would indicate that the respondent husband

has filed M.C.No.72/2016 seeking restitution of conjugal

rights and therefore, the said aspect would substantiate

RPFC No. 100141 of 2017

the fact that the petitioners are residing separately from

the respondent - husband. Perusal of the evidence on

record would indicate that, PW1 has stated about the

properties standing in the name of the respondent -

husband and also produced the RTC Pahanis as per Exs.

P19 to P22.

12. In that view of the matter, taking into account

the evidence of PW1 and the finding recorded by the

Family Court at paragraphs 20 and 21 of the impugned

order, I am of the view that there is no perversity in the

order passed by the Family Court.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as devoid of

merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Vb/gab