Karnataka High Court
Dr. Ch. Nareen Chakravarthy vs Smt Challagulla Jyothi on 3 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.238 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DR. CH. NAREEN CHAKRAVARTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT NO.3, FLAT NO.101,
INDRAPURI RAILWAY COLONY,
WEST MARREDPALLY,
SECUNDERABAD-500 026.
TELANGANA STATE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. CHALLAGULLA JYOTHI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T W/O DR.NAREEN CHAKRAVATHY,
Location: HIGH D/O KILARU JANARDHAN RAO.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. MASTER DAIVIK C.H.,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
S/O DR. NAREEN CHAKRAVARTHY.
BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.301,
SAI SAPTAGIRI ENCLAVE,
3RD FLOOR, VINAYAKANAGAR,
8TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
KONENA AGRAHARA, 'A' BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 017.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED,
R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 25.02.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.5/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE VI ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU
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
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though
notice is issued against the respondents, they are
unrepresented.
2. This petition is filed challenging the judgment
and decree dated 25.02.2022, passed in
Crl.Misc.No.5/2019, on the file of the VI Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the
respondents herein filed Crl.Misc.No.5/2019 for herself and
her child aged about 6 years at the time of filing the
petition in 2019 and she claims that she is the elder
daughter to her parents, who are residents of Bengaluru.
The marriage between her and her husband was
solemnized on 12.02.2011 at Capitol Hotel, Bengaluru as
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
per Hindu customs. It is her claim that the respondent
therein was working in Riyadh (UAE) and soon after the
marriage, petitioner No.1 and respondent would be leading
marital life at Riyadh. So, as per the demands of his
parents, Rs.15,00,000/- cash as dowry, Rs.10,00,000/-
cash towards gold jewelleries, cloths, for expenses and
silver articles weighing 5 kgs. were given in the presence of
elders. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 joined the
respondent to lead marital life at the house of her in-laws
at Secunderabad. It is also her case that she lived happily
only for three months. Later, she came to know about true
colours of the respondent and his family members. The
respondent was a habitual drunkard, who used to harass
and abuse her in a filthy language and demanded money
from her parents for his day-to-day expenses. Moreover,
he used to spy her day-to-day movements and used to
scold her in bad words. She silently tolerated tortures of
the respondent and his parents.
4. It is her case that she became pregnant and it
was confirmed when it was 18 weeks old. Keeping in view
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
her marital life and happiness of parents, she did not
disclose harassment of the respondent and his parents.
Her parents came to Secunderabad, requested the parents
of the respondent to send petitioner No.1 with them to
Bengaluru, but they did not send her thinking that she
would disclose all the truth to her parents. When she was
in sixth month of her pregnancy, her parents again came to
see her, then the respondent and his parents demanded a
new car as a festival gift which should not be less than
Rs.15,00,000/- worth suitable to the family status. Then
her father requested for some time to arrange the same.
But, they wanted it immediately. Then she revealed
everything to her parents what she suffered in the hands of
the respondent and her in-laws. So, when her father raised
the issue with in-laws of petitioner No.1, then he was
warned not to interfere in their family matters. With due
respect to the family status, her father left to Bengaluru.
5. It is also her case that when she was in seventh
month of her pregnancy, she was brought to her parents
house for delivery. She was admitted in Amarjyoti Nursing
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
Home. She gave birth to a male child on 18.11.2011, who
is petitioner No.2. After cradle ceremony, the respondent
went out of the house and returned home at 9.00 p.m.,
fully drunk and started verbally abusing her and her family
members without any reason. He slapped her and when
her father tried to convince him, he bet her father as well
on his shoulder and neck and kicked him. His uncle K.
Gopala Krishna was also injured in the said incident. In the
month of March 2015, the elders by name G. Subbarao and
Narasimha Rao tried to interact with the respondent's
family at Secunderabad to solve the problems between
them. Then the respondent was absconding without any
reason. Moreover, family members of the respondent were
passing awkward and degrading comments about her and
her family members. In the month of June 2012, the
petitioner No.1 approached relatives of her husband, who
promised her to settle the issues.
6. The respondent wanted to start a business at
Guntur and demanded Rs.10,00,000/-. On 08.08.2012,
with the help of elders, petitioner No.1 joined the
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
respondent at Teja Grand Apartments, Guntur on a
condition that no family members and relatives should
come to see her. Then her husband was in constant touch
with his parents and used to harass her as per instructions
of his parents. On 20.01.2012, the respondent took away
her gold ornaments i.e., uncut diamond necklace worth
Rs.5,00,000/- from her and asked her not to enter house
any more. But the respondent went on sending messages
to her younger sister, irritating and defaming her and her
family members and subjected to cruelty. Therefore, she
lodged the complaint with the police on 23.09.2013 and
case is registered in CCC No.1656/A10/Grievance. The
respondent also opened a clinic in Vijayawada and her
father used to send money for maintenance of the couple
since he had neglected his avocation also. Hence, she
claimed the maintenance of Rs.1,25,000/-. The respondent
is working as a Professor in Rajas Dental College and
Hospital, Kavalikinaru Junction, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu and
getting salary of more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month. He
also earns Rs.2,00,000/- per month by way of private
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
practice. So, his income is Rs.48,00,000/- per annum. He
is also getting Rs.15,00,000/- as his share from the
properties.
7. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got
marked the documents and the respondent i.e. the
petitioner herein has not cross-examined P.W.1 and even
not filed any affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court and the wife filed the affidavit
of Assets/Liabilities where she claimed that she is a income
tax assessee and she is M.S. Graduate and no details of her
income is furnished before the Trial Court. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, having taken note of the qualification of
the petitioner herein that he is an Orthodontist and in
paragraph No.32 discussed in detail and taken note of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v.
Neha and others and also invoking Section 114 of the
Indian evidence Act inference was drawn though she
claimed Rs.1,25,000/- for her expenditure. In paragraph
No.33 observed that nowhere she has disclosed about her
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
qualification and monthly income. But in the
Assets/Liabilities affidavit she has categorically stated
about the qualification and the observation of the Trial
Court is erroneous and though taken note of that she is an
income tax assessee, but it is her case that he willfully
neglected her and the child and no material is placed by
the petitioner herein with regard to his income is
concerned. When the petitioner herein has not cross-
examined P.W.1 and not produced any evidence and even
not denied the case of the respondents herein and having
taken note of the status, the Trial Court awarded an
amount of Rs.50,000/- per month to the wife and
Rs.25,000/- per month to the child. Hence, the present
petition is filed before this Court.
8. The respondents though served with notice have
remained unrepresented.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner because
due to Covid he could not appear before the Trial Court.
The order sheet discloses that the petition was filed in 2019
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
and even though the petitioner was present before the
Court earlier and subsequent to Covid he did not appear
before the Trial Court. P.W.1 was examined on 26.08.2019
and the documents are marked. P.W.1 was not cross-
examined and taken as no cross of P.W.1 on 09.12.2019
i.e., before Covid-19. On 01.02.2020, the learned counsel
for the respondent therein sought time and his prayer was
rejected. The respondent's evidence is taken as nil and the
case was posted for arguments. Thereafter, the P.O. was
on leave and once again on 08.02.2021, the matter was
posted for arguments. On 08.06.2021, directed to file the
affidavit of Assets/Liabilities and the wife filed
Assets/Liabilities, but the respondent did not file the same.
On 20.07.2021, both the petitioner and counsel were
absent and the matter was posted to 04.09.2021 to file
Assets/Liabilities of the respondent and posted the matter
for respondent's arguments and the learned counsel for the
respondent was absent. Even though sufficient opportunity
was given, the respondent did not file the affidavit and
hence taken as not filed. The respondent and the learned
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
counsel were absent even on 30.12.2021 and hence the
Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order.
10. Having perused the order sheet, it is clear that
after Covid-2019, the petitioner herein, even though earlier
represented through counsel and filed the statement of
objection, did not choose to contest the matter by cross-
examining P.W.1. Now, the learned counsel contend that
an opportunity has to be given. The material discloses that
he was represented through counsel and when the
respondent herein was examined as P.W.1, the petitioner
did not cross-examine the witness and even though not
filed the affidavit of Assets/Liabilities as directed by the
Apex Court, given an opportunity to him and he did not
contest the matter. It is not his case that he could not
appear for valid reasons and contest the matter and he is
not an illiterate and he is a doctor by profession and now
he cannot seek indulgence from this Court to show any
lenience when the material discloses that he is a
Orthodontist and the same has not been denied by the
petitioner. There are no grounds to once again give an
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22795
RPFC No. 238 of 2022
opportunity and there cannot be whims and fancies of the
petitioner herein and seek for indulgence of this Court.
Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to set aside
the order of the Trial Court. The petitioner being a doctor
did not contest the matter before the Trial Court when
opportunity was given and when sufficient opportunity was
given before the Trial Court, it is not a case for showing
any indulgence in favour of the petitioner. He has not
made out any grounds. Hence, I do not find any reasons to
set aside the order of the Trial Court.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
