Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajeshwari W/O. Amit Anwekar vs Amit S/O. Gajanan Anwekar on 23 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2021 (-)
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100049 OF 2021
IN REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2021 :
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. AMIT ANWEKAR
AGE 37 YEARS,OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O CHARANTIMATH GARDEN,
VINAYAK KULKARNI,BADAVANE, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.P.S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE., FOR
SRI. K L PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AMIT S/O. GAJANAN ANWEKAR
AGE 45 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS,
R/O KATYAYINI,NEAR BANESHWAR TEMPLE,
NANDANAGADDA,KARWAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SAJID GOODWALA.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL,
ADV.,)
-2-
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD 08.02.2021
IN CRL.MISC. NO.314/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
IN REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100049 OF 2021 :
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. AMIT S/O. GAJANAN ANWEKAR
AGE 44 YEARS,OCC LABOUR
R/O. 2754/D LAXMI NARAYAN
NIVAS,KATYAYANI NEAR
BANESHWAR TEMPLE,
NANDAAGADDA KARWAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. AMIT ANWEKAR
AGE 38 YEARS,OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/O CHARANTIMATH GARDEN
VINAY KULKARNI,BADAVANE
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SAJID GOODWALA.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL,
ADV.,)
-3-
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD 08.02.2021
IN CRL.MISC. NO.314/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
These Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order
dated 08/2/2021 in Crl.Misc.No.314/2017 on the file of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, allowing the petition
in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this
Revision Petition are referred to with their rank before the
Family Court.
3. RPFC No.100049/2021 is filed by the respondent-
husband, challenging the impugned order passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad and
RPFC.No.100043/2021 is filed by the petitioner-wife, seeking
enhancement of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
4. It is the case of the petitioner-wife before the
Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner and
respondent was solemnized on 17/2/2016 at Dharwad as per
their custom. It is further stated in the petition that the
respondent-husband and her family members were ill-
treating the petitioner and harassed the petitioner mentally
and physically and as such, the petitioner having not
tolerated the inhumane treatment meted out by the
respondent-husband and her family members, the petitioner
left the matrimonial home and started residing with her
parents. It is also stated in the petition that, the petitioner-
wife has lodged complaint before the women police station
against the respondent, however, the respondent herein has
not taken care of the needs of the petitioner. Accordingly,
the petitioner-wife filed Crl.Misc.No.314/2017 on the file of
the Family Court, seeking maintenance.
5. On service of notice, respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objections denying the
averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
respondent that, at the inception of the marriage, the
petitioner-wife used to quarrel with the family members of
the respondent and petitioner-wife also harassed the family
members of the respondent and she left the matrimonial
home on her own and as such, she is not entitled for
maintenance. In order to prove their case, the petitioner
examined as PW.1 and produced 40 documents and same
were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.40. On the other hand, the
respondent examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and
produced 9 documents and same were marked as Ex.R1 to
Ex.R.9. The Family Court, after considering the material on
record, by order dated 8/2/2021, allowed the petition in part
and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved
by the award of maintenance granted by the Family Court,
the respondent-husband has filed RPFC.No.100049/2021.
The petitioner-wife being not satisfied with the amount of
maintenance, preferred RPFC.No.100043/2021, seeking
enhancement of the maintenance.
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
6. I have heard Smt.P.S.Tadapatri, learned counsel
representing on behalf of Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for
the petitioner-wife and Sri. Sajid Goodwala, learned counsel
for the respondent-husband.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband
contended that the petitioner-wife is not entitled for
maintenance as she left the matrimonial home on her own.
He further argued that the respondent-husband is working in
a gold shop and therefore, the maintenance granted by the
Family Court is just and proper.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-wife contended that the petitioner-wife left the
matrimonial home on account of dowry harassment meted
out by the respondent-husband and his family members. She
further contended that the respondent is running a gold shop
and also having immovable properties at Karwar and
Belagavi and therefore, maintenance granted by the Family
Court is on the lower side and which requires to be enhanced
in this petition.
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 17/2/2016.
Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would
indicate that the petitioner-wife has lodged the complaint as
per Ex.P.32 before the Women police station with regard to
the harassment experienced by her during her stay at
matrimonial home and also it is evident from the finding
recorded by the Family Court that, there is a civil suit
pending between the parties in O.S.No.579/2012 as per
EX.P.37. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner-wife
has lodged the criminal complaint against the respondent-
husband and family members under the provisions of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and also filed the complaint in
P.C.No.84/2017 as per EX.Ps.3 and 4 and further, FIR was
registered against the respondent-husband as per EX.P.5, I
am of the view that, the petitioner-wife is staying away from
the respondent-husband and accordingly, the petitioner is
entitled for maintenance to eke out her livelihood.
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
10. Insofar as award of maintenance is concerned,
perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would
indicate that, the respondent is having immovable properties
at Belagavi and petitioner has also produced Exs.P.8 and 9,
which disclose the fact that the respondent-husband is
having gold shop and the said aspect has been admitted by
the respondent-husband in his cross examination. Taking
into account the fact that the petitioner has to maintain
herself with the status of the respondent-husband and
further the petitioner-wife is leading her life at Dharwad city
and also taking into consideration escalation of essential
commodities, I am of the view that, the petitioner-wife is
entitled for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- in terms of the law
declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhuwan
Mohan Singh V/s. Meena reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that status of the
husband come into play and it is the obligations of the
husband to look after the needs of the wife.
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh
V/s. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, has held that even
if the wife is living separately, it is the obligation on the part
of the respondent-husband to maintain the wife. In that view
of the matter, award of maintenance granted by the Family
Court is on the lower side, taking into account that the
petitioner-wife is residing at Dharwad city and in terms of
the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhuwan Mohan Singh V/s. Meena reported in (2015) 6 SCC
353, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that some
suitable arrangements can be made by the husband so that
wife can sustain herself. The concept of sustenance does not
necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal existence, but
to lead life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the
house of the her husband. In that view of the matter, I am of
the view that the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-wife in RPFC.No.100043/201 has made out a case
for enhancement of the maintenance. In the result, I pass
the following:
- 10 -
RPFC No. 100043 of 2021
C/W RPFC No. 100049 of 2021
ORDER
1. RPFC.No.100049 of 2021 is dismissed;
2. RPFC No.100043 of 2021 is allowed in part;
3. The order dated 8/2/2021 in Crl.Misc.No.314
of 2017 is modified, directing the respondent-
husband to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/-
per month to the petitioner-wife from the
date of the petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
