Shri Pundalik S/O Manohar Kakade vs Smt. Veena W/O Pundalik Kakakde
2022 Latest Caselaw 7800 Kant

                               -1-




                                      RPFC No. 100091 of 2021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2022

                            BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
       REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100091 OF 2021 (-)

BETWEEN:

       SHRI PUNDALIK S/O MANOHAR KAKADE
       AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE,
       R/O. UNITY COMPLEX, BUILDING 5,
       ROOM NO.102, P.G. ROAD, RAJANAPADA
       MALAD (WEST) MUMBAI - 400064

                                                 ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SHWETA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     SMT. VEENA W/O PUNDALIK KAKAKDE
       AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE,
       R/O. NO.47, SRIHARI BUILDING,
       NEAR CHAVAN GARDEN,
       SHIVPUR COLONY, GOKUL ROAD,
       HUBBALLI-30, TQ. HUBBALLI
       DIST. DHARWAD, PIN 580030

2.     KUMARI VISHWAL D/O PUNDALIK KAKADE
       AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
       R/O: NO.47, SRIHARI BUILDING,
       NEAR CHAVAN GARDEN, SHIVPUR COLONY
       GOKUL ORAD, HUBBALLI-30
       TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD



                                               ...RESPONDENTS
        THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT,     1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
                                 -2-




                                         RPFC No. 100091 of 2021


15.06.2021, IN CRL.MISC. NO.152/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
     THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

1. This petition is listed for the orders to take steps

insofar as the unclaimed respondent Nos.1 and 2,

however, with the consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, the matter is taken up

for final disposal.

2. In this revision petition, the petitioner is the

respondent in Crl. Misc. No.152/2016 on the file of

the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi,

challenging the order dated 15.06.2021 allowing the

petition in part. The relevant facts for adjudication of

this revision petition are that, the marriage between

the petitioner herein and the respondent No.1 was

solemnized on 09.07.2000 at Hubballi, as per Hindu

customs and rituals. In their wedlock, respondent

No.2 was born. It is the case of the claimants that,

RPFC No. 100091 of 2021

the petitioner herein has harassed the claimants as

well neglected them and has not provided the basic

needs of the life and accordingly the respondents

herein have filed Crl. Misc. No.152/2016 on the file of

the Family Court seeking maintenance.

3. On service of notice, the petitioner herein has

entered appearance and file his objection statement,

denying the averments made in the claim petition. In

order to prove their case, respondent No.1 was

examined as P.W.1 and the respondents have

examined another witness as P.W.2. The respondents

have produced twelve documents and the same were

marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The petitioner has been

examined R.W.1 and has produced 27 documents

which came to be marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.27. The

Family Court, after considering the material on record

by order dated 15.06.2021 allowed the petition in

part and directed the petitioner herein to pay

maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the

RPFC No. 100091 of 2021

respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to the

respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

husband-respondent in Crl. Misc. No.152/2016 has

presented this petition.

4. Heard Smt. Swetha Kulkarni, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner. Notice issued with

respect to respondents reflects in the order sheet as

not claimed.

5. Smt. Swetha Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner contended that, the award of

maintenance by the Family Court is incorrect, without

taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner

herein has availed loan for construction of

building/house and therefore, she submitted that

interference be made in the impugned order.

6. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully

examined the finding recorded by the Family Court.

RPFC No. 100091 of 2021

It is not in dispute that the marriage between the

petitioner herein and the respondent No.1 was

solemnized on 09.07.2000 and the respondent No.2

is the child born in their wedlock. Perusal of the

finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate

that the respondents herein have left the matrimonial

home and residing along with their parents of the

respondent No.1, due to matrimonial dispute

between them. In this regard, I have carefully

considered the finding recorded by the Family Court,

particularly with regard to the fact that the

Respondents herein have produced Ex.P.9 the salary

particulars of the petitioner herein which discloses

that, the petitioner herein is working as a Deputy

Manager (Marketing) as on 01.12.2017 and drawing

a salary of Rs.89,035/- per month and taking into

consideration the finding recorded by the Family

Court and the law declared by the Apex Court in the

case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut

RPFC No. 100091 of 2021

Prava Dixit and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC

3348, I am of the view that the order of

maintenance granted by the Family Court is just and

proper and it does not call for any interference in this

revision petition.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH