Fakkirappa S/O Venkatappa Begur vs Smt Yankavva @ Parvatevva W/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8968 Kant

                            -1-




                                   RPFC No. 100028 of 2021


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

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

        REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100028 OF 2021 (-)

BETWEEN:

FAKKIRAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA BEGUR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TADAS, TQ. BYADGI
DIST. HAVERI-581106
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
SMT YANKAVVA @ PARVATEVVA
W/O. FAKKIRAPPA BEGUR
AGE .57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TADAS, TQ. BYADGI,
NOW RESIDING AT KORADUR
TQ AND DIST . HAVERI-581106
                                          ...RESPONDENT

       THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
02.03.2021, IN CRL.MISC.NO.10/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
FAMILY COURT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C..

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-




                                        RPFC No. 100028 of 2021


                              ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in Crl. Misc.

No.10/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Haveri challenging the

order dated 02.03.2021, allowing the petition in part.

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

petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking

before the Family Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, she got married to

the respondent on 20.04.1988 at Koradur village of Haveri Taluk

and District and thereafter she led the matrimonial life for a period

of 4 years and during the said period, the respondent was

harassing the petitioner and tried to kill her and accordingly, the

petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home. It is the case of the

petitioner that, in order to maintain herself, she requires

maintenance as she cannot depend on the earnings of her parents

and accordingly, she filed Crl.Misc.No.10/2020 before the Family

Court seeking maintenance.

4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance

and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the

RPFC No. 100028 of 2021

petition. In order to prove their case, petitioner was examined

herself as PW1 and got examined 2 more witnesses as PWs.2 and

3 and produced 15 documents and the same were marked as

Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent was examined himself as RW1 and

got examined one more witness as RW2 and no documents were

marked on behalf of the respondent.

5. The Family Court after considering the material on

record, by its order dated 02.03.2021, allowed the petition in part

and directed the respondent husband to pay maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner - wife. Being aggrieved by

the same, the respondent - husband presented this petition.

6. Heard Sri. Nagaraj Appannavar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner.

7. Sri. Nagaraj Appannavar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner contended that, the finding recorded by the Family

Court to award maintenance of a sum of Rs.5000/- to the

respondent-wife is not correct. He further contended that, the

petitioner in the present case is residing along with his brother and

has no independent source of income and accordingly he sought

for interference of this Court in the impugned order.

RPFC No. 100028 of 2021

8. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully considered the order

passed by the Family Court, which would indicate that there is no

dispute with regard to solemnization of marriage between the

petitioner and respondent on 20.04.1988 and the petitioner wife

was residing in the matrimonial home for a period of 4 years.

Taking into account the proceedings before the parties, particularly

with regard to Exs.P14 and P15, I am of the view that, it is duty of

the petitioner husband to look after the wife in terms of the

provisions contained under Section125 Cr.P.C. The arguments

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that

the petitioner herein has no means to pay the maintenance cannot

be accepted as it is the obligation on the part of the husband to

provide basic necessities to the wife and In that view of the matter,

I do not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the

Family Court. Accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed. The

amount in deposit be transmitted to the family court for further

disbursement, if any.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab