Sri. Veeranna S/O Holiyappa ... vs Smt. Vinoda W/O Veeranna ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9392 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

                 RPFC NO.100036 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SRI. VEERANNA S/O HOLIYAPPA GARBHAGUDI
AGE 58 YEARS,
OCC HELPER IN SAMYUKTA
KARNATAKA PRESS,
R/O. KOPPIKAR ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580020
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI S N BANAKAR, ADV.)

AND

SMT. VINODA W/O VEERANNA GARBHAGUDI
AGE 50 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/O. LAXMI NAGAR, BIDNAL
HUBBALLI-580020
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT PADMAJA S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE)

      THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.06.2021, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.72/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.

      THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                2




                           ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent-

husband in Crl.Misc.No.72 of 2017 on the file of the I

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi,

challenging the order dated 01.06.2021, allowing the

petition in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to

this Revision Petition shall be referred to in terms of their

status and ranking before the Family Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that, the

marriage between the petitioner and respondent was

solemnized on 10.04.1993 at Maruthi Temple at Medleri

Village, Ranebennur and thereafter, the petitioner was

residing at matrimonial home for few days. Later,

respondent and his family members were harassing the

petitioner and as such, the petitioner left the matrimonial

home and residing along with her parents as she is not

able to eke out her livelihood. Therefore, the petitioner

has filed Crl.Misc.No.72 of 2017 on the file of the Family

Court, seeking maintenance.

4. On service of notice the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objection denying the

averments made in the petition. In order to establish

their case, petitioner was examined as PW1 and adduced

07 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to

P7. Respondent was examined as RW1 and produced 01

document and the same was marked as Ex.D1.

5. The Family Court, after considering the

material on record, by its order dated 01.06.2021

allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of

Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband

presented this Revision Petition.

6. Heard Sri S N Banakar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Smt Padmaja S.

Tadapatri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Perused the records.

7. Sri S N Banakar, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent-husband argued that award of

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month is on the higher

side as the respondent- husband is a cardiac patient and

not in a position to pay a monthly maintenance of

Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner-wife. Referring to the

documents filed by learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-husband, he argued that the respondent-

husband is taking treatment at SS Narayana Heart

Centre, Davanagere and he has to take care of his health

and to meet the medical expenses and further he is semi

skilled worker in Samyukta Karnataka Press and earning

Rs.12,000/- per month and therefore, he contended that

the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires

interference of this Court in the impugned order. He also

argued that respondent-husband never neglected the

petitioner-wife and willing to accept her at any point of

time, however, petitioner left the house of the husband

voluntarily without any cause. Accordingly, he submitted

that, petitioner-wife is not entitled for maintenance.

8. Per contra, Smt Padmaja S. Tadapatri, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife contended that

the respondent-husband was not looking after the

petitioner-wife and a girl child was born in wedlock to

them and daughter got married to the younger brother of

the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband has to

take care of needs for livelihood of the petitioner-wife

and therefore, she submitted that award of maintenance

granted by the Family Court is just and proper and same

does not call for interference in this Revision Petition and

accordingly, she sought to justify the impugned order

passed by the Family Court.

9. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal of the

impugned order would indicate that, the marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 10.04.1993 at

Medleri Village, Ranebennur Taluk and in their wedlock a

daughter was born and she got married to petitioner's

younger brother. It is also forthcoming from the finding

recorded by the Family Court that respondent-husband is

working at Samyuktha Karnataka Press at Hubballi and

the respondent-husband admits that he is getting salary

of Rs.12,000/- per month. Though the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-husband submits that the

petitioner herself has deserted the respondent-husband,

however, the said aspect of the matter cannot be gone

into in a petition filed under Section 125 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Section 125 of Code of Criminal

Procedure is as social measure to provide basic needs to

the destitute wife and children, who are dependent on

their guardian. In that view of the matter, taking into

account the fact that, respondent-husband is working at

Samyukta Karnataka Press, Hubballi and having

immovable properties, I am of the view that, award of

maintenance Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife

is just and proper and does not call for interference in

this petition, though the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent argued that the respondent-husband is a

cardiac patient but it is not a ground to deny the

maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, as it is obligation on the part of the husband

to take care the needs of his wife and children, in view of

the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the

Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2

SCC 324.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB