Karnataka High Court
Santosh Bernard vs Mary Prabha on 9 September, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
RPFC No. 157 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 157 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH BERNARD
S/O BERNARD
AGE 37 YEARS
OCC RAILWAY EMPLOYEE
R/O NO.747/B
VINOBHA NAGAR
GADAG ROAD,
HUBBALLI 580 020
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALARAJ A C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARY PRABHA
W/O SANTOSH BERNARD
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O NO.67,
of Karnataka
RAJA GOPALA
MUDALIYAR STREET AUSTIN TOWN
BENGALURU 47
2. MASTER JADEN JERIAL SANTOSH BERNARD
AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS
MINOR
R/O NO. 67,
RAJA GOPALA MUDALIYAR STREET
AUSTIN TOWN
-2-
RPFC No. 157 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 047
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2022
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.661/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
125(1) OF Cr.PC. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR, ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent-husband
before the Family Court in C.Misc.No.661 of 2015 challenging
the Order dated 26th April 2022, allowing the petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
petition are referred to with their status and rank before the
Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 before the Family
Court that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the
respondent-husband was solemnized on 09th May, 2012. It is
stated in the petition that the respondent-husband is working in
Railways and it is further stated that after marriage, the couple
stayed at Bengaluru and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2-son
born on 06.02.2013. Further, it is stated in the petition that in
RPFC No. 157 of 2022
view of the interference made by the family members of the
respondent-husband, petitioners were constrained to leave the
matrimonial home. Accordingly, she left he matrimonial home.
It is also stated that she was working as Senior Process
Executive in Infosys and she left the job on account of the
matrimonial rift between her and the respondent-husband.
Accordingly, the petitioners filed C.Misc. No.661 of 2015
seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband.
4. On service of notice the respondent-husband entered
appearance and filed detailed objection. In order to establish
their case petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got
marked 17 documents as Exhibits P1 to P17. Respondent was
examined RW1 and he has produced six documents and the
same were marked as Exhibits R1 to R6. The Family Court,
after considering the material on record, by its order dated 26th
April, 2022 allowed the petition in part and as such, directed
the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per
month to the second petitioner, however, rejected the
maintenance in so for as the petitioner No.1 is concerned.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has
presented this petition.
RPFC No. 157 of 2022
5. Sri A.C. Balaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, contended that the quantum of maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court to
petitioner No.2 is improper and without any evidentiary value.
He further contended that as per Exhibit R2, the gross salary of
the petitioner herein was Rs.34,771/- and after making
necessary deductions the take-home would be very less and
the said aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by the
Family Court. Accordingly, he sought for interference by this
Court.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, careful examination of the
finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the
petitioner and the respondents are residing separately. It is
also admitted fact that in view of the judgment and decree
dated 18th February, 2017 passed in MC No.97 of 2015, the
marriage between the petitioner No.1-wife and respondent-
husband is dissolved and same has reached finality. However,
insofar as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, careful
examination of finding would indicate that the petitioner herein
has not taken care of the petitioner No.2 as the petitioner No.2
RPFC No. 157 of 2022
is residing with his mother. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner herein has no means to
look after the petitioner No.2-child, however, it is not in dispute
that after the dissolution of the marriage in MC No.97 of 2015
between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband, the
petitioner herein has remarried and further it is the duty of the
father to look after his child. Undisputably, the petitioner
herein is working as Typist in Railway Department and
therefore, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the
Family Court directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- is just and power and does not call
for any interference in this petition. In the result, the petition
is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
