Sri. Mahesh S/O Late Hulugappa vs Smt. Suvarna @ Madhavi W/O Mahesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7639 Kant

                                                -1-




                                                       RPFC No. 100138 of 2017




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2022

                                             BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                        REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100138 OF 2017 (-)

                   BETWEEN:

                        SRI. MAHESH S/O LATE HULUGAPPA
                        AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS TELEPHONE
                        OPERATOR/METER READER IN GESCOM,
                        APMC YARD, BALLARI,
                        R/O: CMC QUARTERS
                        SREERAMPURAM COLONY, BALLARI.
                        PIN CODE:583105


                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. S M KALWAD, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:


                   1.   SMT. SUVARNA @ MADHAVI W/O MAHESH
                        AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
VN
BADIGER            2.   MINOR Y.M. AKHIL KUMAR HEGDE S/O MAHESH
                        AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER     3.   MINOR Y.M. MERONICA HEGDE D/O MAHESH
Date: 2022.06.02        AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
11:28:04 +0530

                        ALL ARE R/AT: GANGAPPA ZIN,
                        MILLERPET, BALLARI, PIN CODE 583101


                        THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, REPTD.
                        BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT
                              -2-




                                    RPFC No. 100138 of 2017


    NO.1 SUVARNA @ MADHAVI W/O. MAHESH


                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R3 ARE MINOR REPTD. BY R1)

      THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:31.08.2017,
IN CRL.MISC. NO.285/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
     THIS PETITON COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

1. In this revision petition, the petitioner herein

has challenged the order dated 31/8/2017 passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, whereby the Family

Court partly allowed the claim petition filed by the

respondents herein.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this

petition are that, respondent No.1 and petitioner herein

are the wife and husband respectively and their marriage

was solemnized on 22/12/2008 at CMC quarters, Ballari as

per the Hindu customs and rituals. It is also stated in the

claim petition that, from their wedlock, respondent Nos.2

RPFC No. 100138 of 2017

and 3 are born. It is the case of the petitioners before the

Family Court that the respondent used to harass the

petitioner No.1 both physically and mentally. Though

panchayath was held for settlement, however, respondent

did not yield to the advice of the panchayath and

accordingly the respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home

along with the children and started residing along with her

parents. It is also stated in the petition that the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minor children aged about 8

and 7 years respectively and she has to maintain her

children. It is further stated that the petitioner is employed

in GESCOM, Ballari and is getting salary from his

employment and petitioner herein is not taking care of the

basic necessities to be provided for the respondents

herein. Accordingly, respondents herein have filed

Crl.Misc. No.285/2016 on the file of the Family Court,

Ballari seeking maintenance.

RPFC No. 100138 of 2017

3. On service of notice, respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objections denying the

averments made in the claim petition.

4. To prove their case, respondent No.1 herein

was examined as PW.1 and produced 4 documents and the

same were marked as EX.P.1 to EX.P.4. Petitioner herein

examined as RW.1 and produced one document and the

same was marked as EX.R.1. The Family Court, after

considering the material on record, by order dated

31/8/2017 allowed the petition in part and directed the

petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per

month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month

each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by

the order dated 31/8/2017, the respondent in Crl.Misc.

No.285/2016 has presented this petition.

5. I have heard Sri.S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri.Ganapthi M Bhat, learned counsel

for the respondents.

RPFC No. 100138 of 2017

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that the amount of maintenance awarded by

the Family Court is on the higher side and the petitioner is

getting salary of Rs.8,500/- after deduction and he has to

maintain his own sister, brother as well as the parents and

accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought

for interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed

by the Family Court. He further contended that the

respondent herein is ekeing out her livelihood by way of

coolie and she has to take care of two minor children also;

and accordingly he submits that the petition be dismissed

in limine.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the parties and also the

reasons assigned by the Family Court in the impugned

order. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on

RPFC No. 100138 of 2017

22/12/2008 at CMC quarters, Ballari and from their

wedlock two children i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 are

born.

9. Perusal of records would indicate that the

petitioner is working at GESCOM, Ballari and in order to

prove the said employment, the petitioner himself has

produced EX.R.1-Pay Slip. Taking into consideration the

fact that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minor children

and respondent No.1 has to take care of the welfare of the

children, I am of the view that the amount of maintenance

awarded by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Ballari is just and

proper and it does not call for interference in the matter.

By looking into the scope and ambit of Section 125 of

Cr.P.C., Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner

made feeble grounds that the petitioner herein is getting

salary of Rs.8,500/- per month, however, that cannot be a

ground to reduce the monthly maintenance awarded in

respect of the wife and children as observed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In that view

RPFC No. 100138 of 2017

of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with

the impugned order passed by the Prl. Judge, Family

Court, Ballari and there is no illegality or perversity in the

order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB