Karnataka High Court

Smt.Geeta And Anr vs Sri.Ajit S/O Krishnaji Inamadar on 28 June, 2022

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                            1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
                 R.P.F.C. No.200040/2018
BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. GEETA W/O AJIT INAMDAR,
       AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O BOMANALLI VILLAGE, TQ: SINDAGI,
       DIST: VIJAYAPUR, NOW AT TIKOTA VILLAGE,
       TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.

2.   KUMAR KASHINATH S/O AJIT INAMDAR,
     AGE: 16 MONTHS, SINCE MINOR R/BY
     HIS NEXT FRIEND-MOTHER-PETITIONER-1,
     I.E. SMT. GEETA W/O AJIT INAMDAR,
     AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O BOMANALLI VILLAGE, TQ: SINDAGI,
     DIST: VIJAYAPUR, NOW AT TIKOTA VILLAGE,
     TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.
                                         ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR A.K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. AJIT S/O KRISHNAJI INAMDAR,
AGE: 34 YERS, OCC: TEACHER & AGRI,
R/O ALMEL, TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.
                                          ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH GINNI, ADVOCATE FOR
     SMT. HEMA L.K, ADVOCATE)
                               2


     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 04.04.2018 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.765/2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT AT VIJAYAPURA AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
REVISION   PETITION    AND  THEREBY   ENHANCE     THE
MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FROM RS.3,000/- PER MONTH TO
RS.10,000/- PER MONTH AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND ALSO GRANTING
MAINTENANCE OF SUM OF RS.15,000/- TO THE PETITIONER
NO.1 AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section

19(4) of the Family Court Act challenging the judgment and

award dated 04.04.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. No.765/2016 on

the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Vijayapura,

wherein the learned Family Judge has partly allowed the

Crl.Misc. No.765/2016 by awarding maintenance to Petitioner

No.2 at Rs.3,000/-, while the petition as regards Petitioner

No.1 came to be rejected.

2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that, petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the

respondent and petitioner No.2 is the son of Petitioner No.1

and the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on

24.03.2014 in Vijayapura and after marriage, they resided

together in the house of respondent for 5 to 6 months and

thereafter, it is alleged that respondent has ill-treated

petitioner No.1 seeking dowry of Rs.2.00 Lakhs and 10 tholas

of gold and subjected her to ill-treatment. It is also alleged

that, when petitioner No.1 was pregnant, the formalities as

per the religion were also not performed and on 15.03.2015,

the respondent demanding dowry, has man-handled her and

driven her out of the house. Initially as per conciliation efforts

during panchayat, the respondent and her parents assured

regarding non-ill-treatment and as such, Petitioner No.1

joined him. But, again she was subjected to ill-treatment

and she was driven out of the house. Hence, she has taken

shelter in her parents' house and filed petition.

3. The respondent appeared before the Family Court

and filed objections denying the allegations and assertions

made in the petition and contended that the petitioner has

deserted him voluntarily and he is ready and willing to accept

her. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. The Family Court after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence, has dismissed the petition filed by

Petitioner No.1-wife, while allowed the petition filed by minor

Petitioner No.2, by awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m.

Being aggrieved by this order, this revision petition came to

be filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned counsel for Respondent. Perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,

the Family Court has erred in rejecting the maintenance to

Petitioner No.1 only on the ground that she refused to join the

respondent/husband without appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record. He would also contend that

the respondent/husband not even filed any application for

restitution of conjugal rights and admittedly has not provided

any maintenance till today. There are serious allegations made

by the wife against the respondent and without considering

the these aspects in a mechanical way, her claim came to be

rejected. He would also contend that the maintenance

awarded for petitioner No.2 is also meager and he would seek

for enhancement.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for

respondent/husband would submit that the respondent is

working in a private school and the petitioner has voluntarily

deserted the husband and as such, he would support the

judgment of the Family Court and sought for dismissal of the

claim petition of the petitioner.

8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that there is no dispute about the

relationship between the parties. It is also admitted that the

respondent has not paid any maintenance to his

wife/petitioner No.1 till today. The Family Court has rejected

the maintenance petition filed on the ground that the

respondent was all along ready and willing to accept the wife,

but, she was not willing to join him. But, merely by making

such submission, the respondent cannot avoid his

responsibilities and the records disclose that he has not even

filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. If at all he

is really interested in accepting petitioner No.1, he would

have filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and his

intention discloses that he is taking such a defence only to

suit his purpose. Apart from that, he is under legal obligation

to maintain his wife and minor child.

9. The records disclose that the ancestral property is

standing in the name of his father and sugarcane is grown

there. Hence, it is evident that, he is having sufficient income,

as he is also working as a teacher in a private school. No

document has been produced by the respondent to show his

salary. He would have produced the material documents to

show his income, but he has with-held the material

documents. Admittedly, though he asserts that the

wife/petitioner No.1 is working as a tailor, but no material

evidence is placed in that regard. On the contrary, he has

taken a defence that he has paid Rs.2.00 Lakhs and 10 tholas

of gold to petitioner No.1/wife during marriage, which cannot

be accepted. The Family Court was carried away by his

assertion that he is ready and willing to accept the wife. But,

the Family Court has failed to consider the fact that, he has

neither made any genuine effort nor filed any petition for

restitution of conjugal rights. It is evident that his attempt

was only in order to avoid payment of maintenance, which is

evident from his examination-in-chief. Under these

circumstances, the Family Court has erred in rejecting the

claim of petitioner No.1.

10. Further, though petitioner No.1 asserts that

respondent/ husband is earning Rs.40,000/- p.m., no

document has been produced in this regard. However,

respondent is a B.Ed. Graduate and admittedly he is working

in a private school, and he is having sufficient income. Apart

from that, he is also possessing ancestral agricultural lands,

wherein he is growing commercial crop of sugarcane. Hence,

it can be safely presumed that he is having sufficient income

and without any reason he has neglected to maintain his wife

and child. Under these circumstances, Petitioner No.1/wife is

entitled for maintenance, as it is a legal obligation of the

husband to maintain his wife.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances, I am of

the considered opinion that, it is just and proper to award

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to Petitioner No.1. Though

enhancement is sought as regards Petitioner No.2, no material

is placed to substantiate the contention in that regard. Hence,

the petition needs to be allowed partly and accordingly I

proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The petition is allowed in part. The order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Family Court in Crl. Misc. No.765/2016 rejecting claim of maintenance of Petitioner No.1 is set aside, while the order of the Family Court granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to Petitioner No.2/minor child is up-held.