Imamsab Ls/O Mabusab Lakkundi vs Anjum W/O Oimamsab Lakkundi
2022 Latest Caselaw 9598 Kant

                              -1-




                                     RPFC No. 100009 of 2018


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
        REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100009 OF 2018 (-)
BETWEEN:

IMAMSAB LS/O MABUSAB LAKKUNDI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BHOVI COLONY, HAGIRIBOMMANAHALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

                                                  ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. H N GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    ANJUM W/O.IMAMSAB LAKKUNDI
      AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
      R/O. H.NO.273, PLOT NO.176,
      HAMALAR COLONY
      NEAR ABDUL KALAM SHADI MAHAL
      MASARI, GADAG, TQ. & DIST. GADAG 582 101.

2.    MOHIT CALLS HIMSELF AS
      S/O IMAMSAB LAKKUNDI
      AGE: 3 YEARS,
      REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
      i.e., ANJUM W/O IMAMSAB LAKKUNDI 582 101.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 24.10.2017 IN CRL.MISC.NO.196/2016, ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
                                      -2-




                                                 RPFC No. 100009 of 2018




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

                                   ORDER

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

No.196/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Gadag, challenging

the order dated 24.10.2017, 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 No.1 that, she is the

legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was

solemnized on 06.02.2013 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was

born. It is further stated in the petition that, petitioner No.1 made

allegation against the brother of the respondent having intoxicating

the petitioner No.1 and forcing her for sexual intimacy and having

not tolerated the inhumane treatment in the matrimonial home, the

petitioner left the matrimonial home and residing separately from

the respondent. Since the respondent is not taking care of the

needs of petitioner No.1, the petitioners have filed

RPFC No. 100009 of 2018

Crl.Misc.No.196/2016 before the Family Court seeking

maintenance.

4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance

and filed detailed objection contending that the respondent has

filed O.S.No.178/2016 to delete the father's name of petitioner No.2

as the petitioner No.1 has illicit connection with other man and he

has already remarried and therefore, sought for dismissal of the

petition.

5. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was

examined herself as PW1 and produced 01 document and same

was marked as Ex.P1. No evidence was recorded on behalf of the

respondent. The Family Court after considering the material on

record, by its order dated 24.10.2017 directed the respondent to

pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to the petitioners and

being aggrieved by the same, the respondent has preferred this

petition.

6. I have heard Sri. H. N. Gularaddi, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records.

RPFC No. 100009 of 2018

7. Sri. H. N. Gularaddi, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order passed in

O.S.No.3/2017 dated 22.01.2017 and argued that the marriage

was dissolved by the competent Court in the aforesaid suit and

further he contended that, the petitioner No.2 child is not born to

him and the said aspect has been considered by the competent

Court in O.S. No.178/2016. Accordingly, he sought for

interference of this Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the

petitioner No.1 and the respondent-husband was solemnized on

06.02.2003 and the finding recorded by the Family Court would

indicate that the petitioners were not residing along with the

respondent on account of rift in the family. Though the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment and

decree dated 22.01.2017, passed in O.S.No.3/2017 to buttress his

argument that the marriage has been dissolved by granting decree

of divorce on 22.01.2017, however perusal of the same would not

indicate about the payment of alimony to the petitioner No.1.

RPFC No. 100009 of 2018

9. In that view of the matter, it is well established principle

in law that even a divorcee/wife is entitled for maintenance from her

divorced husband if not married and in that view of the matter, I do

not find any material to interfere with the well reasoned order

passed by the Family Court. That apart, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.178/2016 wherein the said

proceedings was closed by virtue of the settlement arrived at

before the Lok Adalath on 24.09.2016. I have also carefully

considered the same and in the said proceedings also

maintenance towards petitioner No.2 was not taken into

consideration and In that view of the matter, being a father-

guardian to the child, it is the obligation of the father to pay

maintenance. Accordingly, petition deserves to be dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab