Karnataka High Court
Smt. Neeta W/O. T.N. Sateeshkumar vs Shri. J N Sateesh Kumar on 2 January, 2023
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100105 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NEETA W/O. J.N.SATEESHKUMAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RES: LAXMI NAGAR, DHARWAD.
2. KUMAR. KUSHAL S/O, J. N SATEESH KUMAR,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
RES: LAXMI NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580004.
(SINCE PETITIONER NO. 2 IS MINOR, IS
REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1 WHO IS HIS
NATURAL MOTHER).
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. PADMAPRIYA S.JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. J N SATEESH KUMAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: CAMERA MAN(ROCKLINE
PRODUCTIONS),
Digitally signed
ROHAN
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH
HADIMANI COURT OF
KARNATAKA
RES: NO. 12/A, IIND A MAIN ROAD,
R.C PURAM, BANGALORE-560021.
T DHARWAD
Date:
2023.01.07
13:23:51 +0530
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.S.YADRAMI, SRI. K.H.PATIL AND
SRI. RAKESH S.H., ADVOCATES)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DTD:06.07.2017 PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.236/2015, ON THE
-2-
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF
CR.P.C., WITH DIRECTION TO PAY THE MAINTENANCE OF
Rs.5,000/- FOR PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 EACH AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Present petition is filed by the wife aggrieved by the
order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Dharwad in Crl.Misc.No.236/2015 in
which the Family Judge, Dharwad while partly allowing the
petition filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') has granted
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners No.1
and 2.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the
petitioner No.1 was married to the respondent on
16.04.2004 in accordance with Hindu traditions and
customs. Petitioner No.2 was born to the petitioner No.1
and the respondent. The respondent/husband is working in
a film industry and earning well and he also owns several
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
properties in and around Bengaluru and he also owns and
possesses gold jewelry.
2.1 That after marriage, the petitioner No.1 started
to reside with the respondent/husband in the
matrimonial home. The petitioner No.1 was subjected
to ill treatment by the respondent and his relatives. The
petitioner No.1 was taunted and harassed by the
respondent and was also subjected to cruelty by
demanding dowry. Respondent apart from torturing has
driven out the petitioner No.1 from the matrimonial
home in the year 2008. Ever since then, the petitioner
has been residing in her brother's house at the address
given in the cause title along with her son who is
presently perusing his studies in the Pre-University.
2.2 The petitioner is not being able to manage and
maintain herself and her son, has filed a petition under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in Crl.Misc.No.236/2015
seeking maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month for
herself and for her son. Respondent has filed the
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
statement of objections. Relationship of the petitioners
and the respondent is admitted. It is however denied
that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and ill
treatment at the hands of the respondent and his
relatives.
2.3 It is contended that all attempts made by the
respondent to bring the petitioner back to the
matrimonial home did not materialize. The petitioner
No.1 had left the matrimonial home along with
petitioner No.2 on her own that the respondent does
not own any property as alleged.
2.4 That the respondent is working as an Assistant
Cameraman which is a part time job and that he does
not have any regular and consistent income. Therefore,
he sought for the dismissal of the petition.
2.5 The petitioner led evidence and examined
herself as PW.1 and her brother one Sri.Kiran Mohan
Mahale examined has PW.2 and exhibited 17
documents marked as Exhibits P.1 to P17. Respondent
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
examined himself as RW.1 and exhibited 15 documents
marked as Exhibits R.1 to R.15. The Family Court on
considering of the records, passed the impugned order
directing the respondent/husband to pay Rs.5,000/- to
the petitioners No.1 and 2 each towards maintenance
and also the cost of Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved by the
same, she and her son are before this Court.
3. Smt. Padmaprya S.Jadhav, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that, it is the case of the
petitioners that the amount of Rs.5,000/- each awarded by
the Family Court is grossly inadequate and does not even
meet the basic requirements. The petitioner No.1 is
residing in the house of her brother along with her
son/petitioner No.2 and do not even have a house of their
own and she is not even able to afford a house on rent
from the grossly inadequate maintenance as provided and
granted by the Family Court. She submits that the
petitioner No.2 is pursing studies in the Pre-University and
an amount of Rs.5,000/- each awarded to them is not
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
sufficient to maintain themselves. Hence, seeks for
allowing of this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the
other hand submits that the respondent is not having a
regular and a consistent income. The amount of
Rs.5,000/- awarded to the petitioners No.1 and 2 each is
just and sufficient. Hence, he submits that no grounds are
made out and seeks for dismissal of this petition.
5. Heard Smt. Padmapriya S.Jadhav, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Girish Bhat, learned
counsel for the respondent respectively.
6. Perused the records. The relationship between
the petitioners and the respondent is not denied. The
Family Court on considering the merits of the case has
awarded Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners No.1 and 2.
The respondent is admittedly carrying on his
occupation/allocation as a Cameraman in a film industry.
The fact that cannot be denied is that the petitioner No.1
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
being the wife and petitioner No.2 being the son of the
respondent are residing in the house of brother of
petitioner No.1, and they do not even have an
accommodation of their own. Needless to mention that it
would be difficult for the petitioners to reside in the house
of brother of petitioner No.1 with a grown up son the
petitioner No.2, and minimum requirement which the
respondent is expected to provide is an accommodation
and a reasonable amount of maintenance for their
existence and subsistence.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that the amount of Rs.5,000/- which is
awarded by the Family Court to the petitioners No.1 and 2
each is required to be enhanced to Rs.12,500/- each per
month to the petitioners No.1 and 2.
8. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay
Rs.12,500/- each to the petitioners No.1 and 2. The said
enhanced amount shall be paid to the petitioners by the
RPFC No. 100105 of 2017
respondent from the date of filing of this present revision
petition. The respondent shall pay the said amount within
a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. The respondent shall continue to pay
(aggregating in Rs.25,000/-) on or before 5th of every
month to the petitioners.
9. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
