Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjuna Alias Mallaiah S/O ... vs Smt. Sanjana Alias J Nandini W/O ... on 5 January, 2023
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
RPFC No. 100125 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100125 OF 2022 (-)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUNA ALIAS MALLAIAH S/O JEERA
VEERESHAPPA
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. PHOTO GRAPHER,
R/O. HOSAGERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. SANJANA ALIAS J NANDINI W/O MALLIKARJUNA D/O
BASAVARAJA
AGE. 27 YEARS,
R/O. W.NO. 2, SIDDAMMANAHALLI ROAD,
BADANAHATTI VILLAGE, KURUGODU TALUK,
BALLARI.
2. MINOR HEMANTH KUMAR S/O MALLIKARJUNA
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
AGE. 06 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
HADIMANI T
ROHAN
T
Location: HIGH
HADIMANI COURT
DHARWAD
OF
KARNATAKA
R/O. W.NO. 2, SIDDAMMANAHALLI ROAD,
Date:
2023.01.07
13:24:16 +0530 BADANAHATTI VILLAGE, KURUGODU TALUK,
BALLARI.
3. MINOR HEMANTH KUMAR S/O MALLIKARJUNA
AGE. 06 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. W.NO. 2, SIDDAMMANAHALLI ROAD,
BADANAHATTI VILLAGE, KURUGODU TALUK,
BALLARI.
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
MOTHER SMT. SANJANA ALIAS J NANDINI W/O
-2-
RPFC No. 100125 of 2022
MALLIKARJUNA AGE. 27 YEARS.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GANAPATI M BHAT &
SRI.G.JAYAPRAKASH, ADVS. FOR R1;
R2 & R3 MINORS R/BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD
16.08.2022, IN CRL.MISC. NO.27/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BALLARI ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2022, passed in
Crl.Misc.No.27/2021 on the file of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Family Court'), in and by which the Family Court, Bellary
while allowing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the respondents directed the petitioner herein to
pay a sum of Rs.5000/- each to the respondents 1 to 3
aggregating a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and also
directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation
RPFC No. 100125 of 2022
expenses. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating
the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition
submitted that the petitioner had never neglected or
refused to maintain the respondents. On the other hand, it
is the respondents who have deserted the company of the
petitioner and the petitioner is always ready and willing to
receive the respondents and would take care of them. That
the petitioner is a photographer and has no regular income
and that the impugned order has caused financial hardship
to the petitioner. Hence, he submits that considering the
economic condition and also his readiness and willingness,
petition be allowed setting aside the order of the Family
Court.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents-wife and children submitted that the
petitioner has not shown any bona fide with regard to the
so called inclination to take his wife and children, so much
RPFC No. 100125 of 2022
so, he has not spent even a single paise till today though
the petition was filed in January 2021. That on the other
hand, he has come before this Court questioning the order
passed by the Family Court. He submitts that due to the
ill-treatment meted out to the respondent No.1 by the
petitioner and his family members, the petitioner was
constrained to live along with her children in her parents
place and that the order passed by the Family Court
therefore does not warrant any interference.
4. Heard both the parties. Perused the records.
5. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Respondents 2 and 3
being the children born out of the said marriage is also not
in dispute. Respondent No.1 complaining ill-treatment by
the petitioner and his parents, demanding dowry and other
allegations, started to live with her parents along with her
minor children. The petitioner who is a photographer by
profession, admitted that he has failed to provide
maintenance to the respondents.
RPFC No. 100125 of 2022
6. The Trial Court taking into consideration all the
material evidence more particularly of the conduct of
petitioner being negligent in providing any support to the
respondents and also the medical condition of respondents
No.2 and 3, who are suffering from speech and hearing
and from mental illness not being supported either
emotionally and financially by the petitioner, held them to
be entitled for maintenance.
7. Though the case of the petitioner is that he is
earning his livelihood by carrying out avocation of
photography which is a seasonal avocation and that the
earnings therefrom are not sufficient enough to meet the
demands of the respondents, the Family Court taking note
of this contention and the over all aspect of the matter,
passed the aforesaid order directing the petitioner to pay
Rs.5000/- each to the respondents.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, no grounds are made
out by the petitioner warranting any interference. Petition
RPFC No. 100125 of 2022
is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Family
Court.
sd
JUDGE
KGK
