Ashok S/O Narasinghappa ... vs Sudha W/O Ashok Mallasamudra
2022 Latest Caselaw 9049 Kant

                            -1-




                                   RPFC No. 100104 of 2017




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
    REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100104 OF 2017 (-)
BETWEEN:

    ASHOK S/O NARASINGHAPPA MALLASAMUDRA
    AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUS DRIVER, B.M.T.C.,
    BENGALURU, R/O: YALAHANKA,
    PUTTANAHALLI, DEPOT NO.11,
    BENGALURU.


                                                 ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. J S SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)

AND:

    SUDHA W/O ASHOK MALLASAMUDRA
    AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
    C/O. KANAKAPPA HANAMAPPA HADAGALI,
    R/O: HULAKOTI, ASHRAYA PLOT,
    TQ: DIST: GADAG.



                                                ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESONDENT)

      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
06.07.2017 IN CRL. MISC. NO.109/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.
                              -2-




                                    RPFC No. 100104 of 2017


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



                          ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the respondent in

C.No.109/2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Gadag, challenging the order dated 06.07.2017,

awarding maintenance.

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, her

marriage with the respondent was solemnized in the year

2006 at H.S.Venkapura village of Gadag taluk and district,

and the petitioner-wife was staying with the respondent

for three years and thereafter, the petitioner find difficulty

to continue at matrimonial home on account of the ill-

behavior of the respondent and she was not provided with

basic needs, and therefore, the petitioner left the

RPFC No. 100104 of 2017

matrimonial home and residing with her parents. It is

further stated in the petition that, the petitioner's father is

a coolie and no immoveable properties and she has to

depend on the earnings of her parents and as such she

filed C.No.109/2015 on the file of the Family Court,

seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and denied averments made in the petition.

5. In order to establish their case, the petitioner

was examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and 2 and got

marked three documents as Ex.P.1 to P.3. On the other

hand, respondent was examined as R.W.1 and got marked

5 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. The Family Court after

considering the material on record, by impugned order

dated 06.07.2017 allowed the petition in part. Being

aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has

presented this petition.

RPFC No. 100104 of 2017

7. I have heard Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S.Shettar, learned

counsel for the respondent.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that, the finding recorded by the Family Court

that, the respondent husband is having sufficient means is

incorrect and he further argued that, the allegations made

by the petitioner are all false and baseless and

accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed

by Family Court. In the light of the submission made by

the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that

the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent

was solemnized in the year 2006 and the petitioner was

residing at her matrimonial home for a period of three

weeks. The finding recorded by the Family Court that, the

petitioner-wife is staying with her parents is also not

disputed and the father of the petitioner is a coolie by

RPFC No. 100104 of 2017

profession and therefore, the finding recorded by the

Family Court that, the petitioner-wife is entitled for

maintenance is just and proper,. However, with regard to

award of maintenance is concerned, a perusal of the

record would indicate that, respondent-husband was

working as a Driver at B.M.T.C. Bengaluru and having

salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. It is also forthcoming

from the records that the respondent-husband is having

immovable properties at his native village and in that view

of the matter, taking into account the factual aspects on

record, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the

Family Court is just and proper and does not call for any

interference in this petition.

The amount in deposit if any, be released to the

respondent-wife.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH