Karnataka High Court
Mr.Jayanth vs Tisha on 6 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44276
RPFC No. 292 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 292 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR.JAYANTH
S/O LATE DEJAPPA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT SHREE BHRAMARI,
DOOR NO.22-34, JYOTHI NAGARA,
KULASHEKARA,
MANGALURU-575028.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
TISHA
D/O JAYANTH,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
R/AT G-2, VIGNESHWAR APARTMENT,
BEHIND VEEKAY PARK, URWA STORE,
ASHOKNAGAR POST,
Digitally MANGALURU-575006.
signed by
SUMA
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER
Location: NATURAL GUARDIAN,
HIGH
COURT OF MRS. SHRUTHI B.K.,
KARNATAKA D/O KISHORE B.K,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT ABOVE ADDRESSES.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2022
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.Case.NO.20/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44276
RPFC No. 292 of 2022
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR
MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated
28.10.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, (henceforth referred to as
'the Family Court') in Crl Misc. Case No.20/2021 by which
the petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the petition till the
marriage of the respondent herein.
2. The respondent is the daughter of the
petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and his wife was
dissolved in terms of decree of dissolution of marriage by
mutual consent passed by the Family Court in M.C.
No.229/2017 dated 18.01.2018. Later, the respondent
through her mother initiated proceedings in Crl.Misc. case
NC: 2023:KHC:44276
No.20/2021 under Section 125(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C') inter alia
claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the
petitioner herein .
3. The petitioner herein contested the proceedings
and claimed that his ex-wife had agreed to take care,
maintenance of the child/respondent herein and therefore,
he is not liable to meet the maintenance expenses of the
respondent herein.
4. The Family Court after considering the
contentions urged, passed an order directing the petitioner
to pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance
to the respondent herein from the date of the petition till
her marriage.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
filed this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
reiterated his contentions as above and contended that the
NC: 2023:KHC:44276
petitioner is now married and also has a family to look
after and therefore, the order passed by the Family Court
directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance is not
only causing inconvenience but also has caused hardship
to the petitioner and his family members. He submits that
the petitioner's ex-wife had taken the responsibility of
bringing up the child. She again used the child and
launched a claim for maintenance for the child.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the
other hand, contended that the ex-wife of the petitioner
had no authority to give up the claim for maintenance of
the respondent as the respondent has an independent
right to claim maintenance from the petitioner. In this
regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ganesh v. Sudhirkumar
Shrivastava and Others [(2020) 20 SCC 787] and
contended that the respondent is entitled to claim
maintenance from the petitioner.
NC: 2023:KHC:44276
8. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent.
9. There is no dispute that the respondent is the
daughter of the petitioner. There is also no dispute that
the ex-wife of the petitioner had undertaken to meet the
maintenance expenses of the respondent. The question
that would arise for consideration is whether the ex-wife of
the petitioner could have waived the right to claim
maintenance for the child / respondent herein from the
petitioner. The answer to the said question is no longer
res integra and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court Ganesh's case cited above, the respondent
was entitled to claim independently the maintenance to
which she was entitled from the petitioner. Even
otherwise, a perusal of the impugned order does not show
that the order passed by the Family Court directing the
petitioner herein to pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- is neither
improper nor unjust. On the contrary, in the facts and
NC: 2023:KHC:44276
circumstances of the case, the impugned order is just and
proper having regard to the fact that the child is now 8
years old. Hence, there is no ground made out to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family
Court.
10. Hence, the petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMA
