Sri.K. Nramanjineya S/O K Nagappa vs Smt.Gangamma W/O K N Ramanjineya
2022 Latest Caselaw 9484 Kant

             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

                RPFC NO.100127 OF 2019

BETWEEN

SRI K N. RAMANJINEYA
S/O. K. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: LECTURER AT GOVERNMENT 1ST GRADE
COLLEGE BALLARI
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SMT SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

SMT GANGAMMA,
W/O K N RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O KORACHARAHATTI,
MORATLA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQ
BALLARI DIST.
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:08.08.2019 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.171/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 127(1) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

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




                          ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in

Crl.Misc.No.171 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court,

Bellari, 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 that, the

marriage between the petitioner and respondent was

solemnized 25 years back and due to the family rift, the

petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and thereafter,

the petitioner-wife filed Crl.M.C.No.43 of 2002 on the file

of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bellari seeking

maintenance and said petition came to be allowed,

awarding Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife and

being aggrieved by the same, petitioner-wife has filed

Crl.M.C.No.38 of 2011 before the Family Court seeking

enhancement of maintenance and same was disposed of

on 13.02.2013, directing the respondent-husband to pay

Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner. Thereafter, the

petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.171 of 2018 seeking

enhancement of maintenance on the ground that she is

suffering from aged related ailments before the Family

Court.

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

produced 04 documents and the same were marked as

Exs.P1 to P4. On the other hand, respondent was

examined as RW1 and produced 02 documents and the

same were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.

5. The Family Court, after considering the

material on record, by its order dated 08.08.2019

allowed the petition in-part and awarded maintenance of

Rs.12,000/- per month to the petitioner - wife. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, the respondent - husband

presented this petition.

6. Heard Smt Soubhagya Vakkund, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Y.Lakshmikant Reddy,

for the petitioner and Smt Sunita P. Kalsoor, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the

records.

7. Smt Soubhagya Vakkund, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner argued that, the award of

maintenance passed by the Family Court is on the higher

side as the respondent herself is having immovable

properties along with her sons and therefore, said aspect

has not been considered by the Family Court while

awarding maintenance. Accordingly, she sought for

interference of this Court in the impugned order.

8. Per contra, Smt Sunita P.Kalsoor, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify

the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

9. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate

that, on the earlier occasion the Family Court has

awarded Rs.1,000/- as maintenance in Crl.MC.No.43 of

2002 and thereafter, it was enhanced to Rs.8,000/- in

Crl.MC.No.38 of 2011. Perusal of the finding recorded by

the Family Court would indicate that the respondent-

husband was working as Lecturer in the Government 1st

Grade College, Bellari and as per Exs.P3 and P4-Salary

certificates, the grass salary of respondent was

Rs.77,271/- per month and in that view of the matter, I

am of the view that, taking into account the age of the

petitioner and the medical expenses that may be

required for her to lead the life, I am of the view that,

the award of maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month is

just and proper and it does not call for interference in

this Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition

is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB