Karnataka High Court
Shri.Virupaxgouda @ Babugouda vs Kumari Puja on 6 January, 2023
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
RPFC No. 100016 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100016 OF 2018 (-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI.VIRUPAXGOUDA @ BABUGOUDA
S/O GURANGOUDA PATIL
C/O GURANGOUDA NINGANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
R/O: NEAR BELAVANKI BUS STAND,
BELAVANKI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-581117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL & SRI.ROHIT S PATIL, ADVS.)
AND:
1. KUMARI PUJA D/O VIRUPAXGOUDA @ BABUGOUDA
S/O GURANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HOMBAL, TQ: GADAG.
Digitally signed by
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
ROHAN
MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER
HADIMANI T
ROHAN Location: HIGH
HADIMANI COURT OF
KARNATAKA
T DHARWAD
Date: 2023.01.13
11:49:28 +0530 I.E., SMT.SHAILA W/O VIRUPAXGOUDA @
BABUGOUDA
S/O GURANGOUDA PATIL, (RESP.NO.3)
2. KUMAR IRESHGOUDA
S/O VIRUPAXGOUDA @ BABUGOUDA
S/O GURANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HOMBAL, TQ: GADAG-581117.
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
-2-
RPFC No. 100016 of 2018
MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER
I.E., SMT.SHAILA W/O VIRUPAXGOUDA @
BABUGOUDA
S/O GURANGOUDA PATIL, (RESP.NO.3)
3. SMT.SHAILA W/O VIRUPAXGOUDA @ BABUGOUDA
S/O GURANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O: HOMBAL, TQ: GADAG-581117.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R3 SERVED; R1 & 2 MINORS R/BY R3)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
03.09.2016, IN CRL.MISC. NO.125/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG, PARTLY 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 03.09.2016, passed in
Crl.Misc.No.125/2014, on the file of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as 'the Family
Court'), in and by which the Family Court, Gadag while
partly allowing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the respondents directed the petitioner herein to
RPFC No. 100016 of 2018
pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents 1 to 3.
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 an agriculturist 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
RPFC No. 100016 of 2018
so called inclination to take his wife and children, so much
so, he has not spent even a single paise till today though
the petition was filed in December 2016. That on the other
hand, he has come before this Court questioning the order
passed by the Family Court. He submits that due to the ill-
treatment meted out to the respondent No.3 by the
petitioner and his family members, the respondent No.3
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.3 is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 and 2
being the children born out of the said marriage is also not
in dispute. Respondent No.3 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 an agriculturist,
RPFC No. 100016 of 2018
admitted that he has failed to provide maintenance to the
respondents.
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 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 doing agriculture work, which is
sometimes seasonal 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.3,000/- each to the respondents.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, no grounds are made
out by the petitioner warranting any interference. Petition
RPFC No. 100016 of 2018
is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Family
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
