Karnataka High Court
Geeta Patel W/O Jayantilal Patel And Anr vs Jayantilal Patel S/O Kishore Patel on 20 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
RPFC No. 200010 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200010 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.GEETA PATEL
W/O JAYANTILAL PATEL,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O NEW PATEL GUNJ,
RAICHUR-584 101.
2. HIYA D/O JAYANTILAL PATEL,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
STUDYING IN 3RD STANDARD MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER,
GUARDIAN PETITIONER No.1.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by SWETA
KULKARNI (BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
JAYANTILAL PATEL S/O KISHORE PATEL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 12/7/177/1,
BEHIND YAMAHA SHOW ROOM,
GOSHALA ROAD, RAICHUR AND ALSO
RESIDING AT NEW PATEL GUNJ,
JALARAM TRADING BACK LINE OF BLOCK NO.1,
RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
RPFC No. 200010 of 2023
(BY MISS AMBIKA S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SACHIN MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 11.10.2022 PASSED IN CRL. MISC.
NO.145/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE FAMILY COURT RAICHUR AND TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER TO GRANTING THE MAINTENANCE
AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT RAICHUR AT
RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.Misc.No.145/2020 on the file
of the Family Court at Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the
'Trial Court' for brevity) are impugning the order dated
11.10.2022 allowing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
and directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to petitioner No.2.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to
as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1, for
herself and on behalf of minor petitioner No.2, filed
Crl.Misc.No.145/2020 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming
monthly maintenance from the respondent. It is contended
that petitioner No.1 married the respondent on 30.04.2006 and
since then they led marital life. They have begotten petitioner
No.2. Gradually dispute arose between petitioner No.1 and the
respondent. Respondent used to consume alcohol and used to
indulge in gambling. He used to ill-treat petitioner No.1. It is
stated that the father of petitioner No.1 paid Rs.11,00,000/- for
purchase of a house for the respondent. But he misused the
same. The respondent and his mother started residing in her
parents house. Respondent has not paid any amount towards
the maintenance of the petitioners.
4. It is stated that the respondent is doing garlic
business and earning Rs.30,00,000/- per annum. Therefore,
he is capable of maintaining the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 is
a school going girl studying in III standard. Therefore,
petitioners prayed for grant of monthly maintenance of
Rs.30,000/-.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
5. Respondent appeared before the Trial Court and
filed objection admitting relationship between petitioners and
the respondent. All other contentions are denied. It is stated
that petitioner No.1 is running a beauty parlour for which
money was invested by the respondent. Petitioner No.1 has
picked up quarrel with the respondent and deserted him. The
contention of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was
paid by father of petitioner No.1 or that the same was misused
are denied. He has denied that he was doing garlic business
and was earning Rs.30,00,000/-. It is stated that the
respondent is hardly earning Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-
per annum and it is hard to maintain himself and therefore he
prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and got
marked Ex.P1 in support of her contention. The respondent
examined himself as RW-1. The Trial Court, after taking into
consideration all these materials on record, allowed the petition
in part, directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance
of Rs.3,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to petitioner
No.2.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are
before this Court.
8. Heard Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Miss Ambika S. Patil, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel
for the respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the respondent is a wholesale businessman in garlic and he is
paying GST. He is earning huge income. Petitioner No.1 is a
housewife and she has to look after petitioner No.2 who is now
aged 10 years and studying in IV standard. The Trial Court,
without taking into consideration all these facts, allowed the
petition by awarding maintenance of only Rs.5,000/- to both
the petitioners. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition and
directing the respondent to pay reasonable amount of
maintenance.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent,
opposing the petition, submitted that the respondent is doing
coolie work. Even as per the admission of PW-1 he is not
having any other avocation. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
running beauty parlor and earning a decent income. Taking
into consideration all these materials, the Trial Court rightly
allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of
Rs.5,000/-. There are no reasons to interfere with the same.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
11. Perused the materials on record including the Trial
Court records. In view of the rival contentions urged by
learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise for
my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court suffers from any perversity or illegality and
calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
12. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner
No.1 had married respondent and in the marriage they have
begotten petitioner No.2. This fact is admitted by the
respondent. According to petitioner No.1 the respondent is a
businessman who is dealing in garlic on wholesale basis. My
attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
to the evidence of PW-1. She has admitted that her father had
ousted the respondent from the shop where he was doing garlic
business. She further admits that the respondent is doing
coolie work in another shop. Apart from that he is not having
any other income nor he is having property. PW-1 further
admitted that she has run a beauty parlour by name "Geeta
Beauty Parlor" for about five or six years in Raichur which was
set up with the help of the respondent. She also admits that
initially her father and the respondent were doing wholesale
business in garlic in partnership. But subsequently the
respondent was ousted from the said business. Witness further
admits that she was getting the income of Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.25,000/- from her beauty parlour.
13. When these materials are taken into consideration,
it is clear that petitioner No.1 is earning and capable of earning
her livelihood whereas the respondent is only doing coolie
work. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that
reasonable amount of Rs.5,000/- could be awarded to the
petitioners as maintenance.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9332
14. I have gone though the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any reason to
interfere with the same. Hence, I answer the above point in
the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent has not paid the maintenance even at the rate at
which it is ordered by the Trial Court. There is huge arrears
which is not being paid.
Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent undertakes
to deposit the amount in arrears before the Trial Court within a
reasonable time atleast within four weeks from today. Failing
which, the Trial Court shall deal with the matter expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SWK
