Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ravi S/O Gopal Kangralkar vs Smt.Mahesh W/O Ravi Kangralkar on 24 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RPFC No. 100083 of 2021
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. 100083 OF 2021 (-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVI S/O. GOPAL KANGRALKAR
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
R/O PLOT NO.169, SCHEME NO.40,
5TH STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATIK SHIPURKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.MAHESH W/O RAVI KANGRALKAR,
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. TARAMATI W/O. GANESH KAMBLE,
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, H.NO.4841,
SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590019
2. KUMAR KARTIK S/O. RAVI KANGRALKAR,
AGE 7 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. C/O. TARAMATI W/O. GANESH KAMBLE,
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, H.NO.4841,
SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590019
(SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADANGOUDA N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS MINOR, REPTD. BY R1)
-2-
RPFC No. 100083 of 2021
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO EXERCISE ITS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
AND CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO
JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE FAMILY
COURT JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIM.MISC.258/2016 AND
CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE OPERATION
AND EXECUTION OF AFOREMENTIONED IMPUGNED ORDER, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY. THE
COURT MADE/DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent-
husband challenging the order dated 06.11.2020 in Crl.
Misc. No.258/2016 on the file of the Family Court,
Belagavi, allowing the petition in part.
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 petitioners that, the
petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the
respondent and their marriage was solemnized on
25.11.2013 at Belagavi, and in their wedlock, petitioner
No.2 was born.
RPFC No. 100083 of 2021
4. It is further averred in the petition that, the
respondent was not looking after the petitioners and
having not tolerated the inhumane treatment meted out
by the petitioners at the hands of the respondent, the
petitioners left the matrimonial home and staying at her
parents house. It is the case of the petitioner that, she
had lost her father and mother is aged and therefore, she
has to take care of her old age mother along with child
and accordingly, the petitioners have filed Crl. Misc.
No.258/2016 on the file of the Family Court, seeking
maintenance.
5. On service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed objections denying the averments
made in the petition.
6. It is the specific case of the respondent that,
the petitioner No.1 herself has left the matrimonial home
and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for
maintenance.
RPFC No. 100083 of 2021
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1
was examined as P.W.1 and got marked 03 documents as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Respondent was examined as R.W.1 and
got marked 04 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. The Family
Court after considering the material on record by its order
dated 06.11.2020, dismissed the petition, insofar as the
petitioner No.1 is concerned, however, granted Rs.8,000/-
per month as maintenance to the petitioner No.2-child.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband
has preferred this revision petition.
8. I have heard Sri. Madangouda N. Patil, learned
counsel for the respondent, who submitted that, the award
of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month towards
petitioner No.2 is on the higher side, which requires to be
reduced, taking into account that, the petitioner herein is
working as a Delivery Partner, Essential Service, Food
Delivery in Zomato Media Private Limited and accordingly,
he invited the attention of the Court to the pay slips
produced and further argued that as the salary of the
RPFC No. 100083 of 2021
petitioner herein would be fluctuating and he is working as
a delivery boy and therefore, he argued that the impugned
order requires the interference of this Court.
9. Per contra, Sri. Madangouda N. Patil, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that, the
petitioner/husband is a mechanical Engineer and in order
to avoid the payment of the maintenance, he has shown
the records pertaining to the Zomato Media Private Limited
and therefore, he submitted that, the same be rejected.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and taking into account the factual aspects on
record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 got
married the respondent-husband on 25.11.2013 at
Belagavi and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born.
11. A perusal of the record would indicate that, the
respondent-husband is a Mechanical Engineer with
education at GIT and the petitioner No.1 is a B.A.,
graduate. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Family
RPFC No. 100083 of 2021
Court would further indicate that the petitioners are
staying in their parental house and the father of the
petitioner No.1 is no more.
12. It is also come in the evidence that, the
respondent was working at South Africa, Nigeria and
having immoveable properties behind the KLE school,
Kuvempu Nagar, Belagavi. Taking into account the fact
that, it is the duty of the father to look after the child, I
find force in the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the respondent that the child needs
maintenance and the petitioner No.1 having lost her father
and has to take care the family in entirety, I do not find
any material illegality in the impugned order passed by the
Family Court, accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, pending I.As.
if any, do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
