Mr.Amaresh S/O Hanumanthappa vs Smt.M.Geetha W/O Amresh
2023 Latest Caselaw 466 Kant

                                -1-




                                      RPFC No. 100033 of 2019


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. 100033 OF 2019 (-)
BETWEEN:

MR.AMARESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
MONEY LENDER AND FERTILIZER BUSINESS,
R/O JAWALEGERA VILLAGE,
SINDANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT.

                                                   ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADV.)

AND:

1.   SMT.M.GEETHA W/O AMRESH
     AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O:W.NO.21, BRAMHASHASRI
     COMPOUND, BALLARI 583101.

2.   MINOR BHAVANI SHANKAR M
     AGE:10 YEARS, OCC:MINOR
     IN THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF
     NATURAL MOTHER N.GEETHA,
     AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O:W.NO.21, BRAMHASHASRI
     COMPOUND, BALLARI 583101.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADV. FOR R1 and R2;
 R2-MINOR R/BY R1)

      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:31.08.2018, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.7/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
                              -2-




                                     RPFC No. 100033 of 2019




     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 31.08.2018, passed in

Crl.Misc.No.7/2017, 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 partly allowing the petition under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents directed the petitioner

herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents

1 and 2. 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

RPFC No. 100033 of 2019

the petitioner is a 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 daughter submitted that the

petitioner has not shown any bona fide with regard to the

so called inclination to take his wife and daughter, so

much so, he has not spent even a single paise till today

though the petition was filed in March 2019. 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.1 by the

petitioner and his family members, the petitioner was

constrained to live along with her daughter in her parents

place and that the order passed by the Family Court

therefore does not warrant any interference.

RPFC No. 100033 of 2019

4. Heard both the parties. Perused the records.

5. The marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Respondent No. 2 being

the daughter 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 daughter. The petitioner who is an agriculturist,

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

RPFC No. 100033 of 2019

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

is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Family

Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGK