Sri S Manjunath vs Smt Nethravathi
2023 Latest Caselaw 2993 Kant

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

     REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.146 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI. S. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE T.SONNAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN.

CORRECT ADDRESS:

NO.1188, NARASIMHA PALYA,
WARD NO.9,
SRINIVASPURA TOWN,
SRINIVASPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N.SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    SMT. NETHRAVATHI,
      D/O MUNIYAPPA,
      W/O SRI. S.MANJUNATH,
      AGED 33 YEARS

2.    MASTER DRUPADA M
      (MINOR)
      S/O S.MANJUNATH
      AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
                              2


    REPRESENTED BY HIS
    MOTHER
    i.e. RESPONDENT NO.1

    BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
    ABBANI GRAMA,
    HUTHOORU HOBLI,
    KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 AND 2)

     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
26.10.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.70/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOLAR,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR
MAINTENANCE.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 19.04.2023 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

This revision petition under section 19(4) of the

Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed assailing the correctness of

the Order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Kolar (henceforth referred to as 'the Family

Court') in Crl. Misc. (FC) No.70/2017 by which the

petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance of

Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein from

the date of the application till her lifetime or till she

remarries and a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the

respondent No.2 herein from the date of the application till

the date of his attaining majority and a sum of Rs.50,000/-

every year towards educational expenses of the

respondent No.2 herein and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein towards litigation

expenses.

2. A petition in Crl. Misc. (FC) No.70/2017 was

filed by the respondents claiming maintenance of

Rs.40,000/- per month to each of them and Rs.1,00,000/-

to the respondent No.2 per year towards his educational

expenses. The respondent No.1 contended that she was

given in marriage to the petitioner on 08.03.2015 at

Kanipakam in Andhra Pradesh and that she and petitioner

were residing at Srinivasapura for 1½ months and that

respondent No.2 was born from the wedlock. The

respondent No.1 claimed that petitioner and his mother

had demanded gold ornaments and a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry which they upped later. The

respondent No.1 claimed that her parents agreed to the

demand of the petitioner and his mother and parted with

gold ornaments and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- apart from

silver articles. She claimed that her mother-in-law started

interfering with the affairs of the family and again started

demanding more money from her parents and her parents

gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner on two occasions.

When they again demanded more money from her parents

and when they refused to comply, petitioner and his

mother started ill-treating respondent No.1 and abusing

her and many a times physically assaulted her.

Respondent No.1 alleged that she was not provided with

basic necessities following which panchayats were held for

settlement but the petitioner and his mother refused to

heed to the advice of the panchayatdars. The respondent

No.1 further alleged that her mother-in-law planned to kill

her several times and that she managed to escape every

time. She further alleged that prior to her marriage,

petitioner had already married another lady named

Smt.Rashmi, daughter of Sri S. Narayanaswamy of

Ramanathapura village, Devanahalli Taluk, and after such

marriage, he had an illicit relationship with a lady named

Ms.Prameela and they both were involved in the murder of

the said Smt.Rashmi on 08.02.2012. She alleged that the

father of Smt.Rashmi had lodged a complaint against

petitioner, his mother and Ms.Prameela before

Srinivasapura Police Station who registered Crime

No.35/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 304B and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A charge sheet was also

filed against them. The respondent No.1 alleged that the

petitioner and his mother without disclosing that they were

charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences, had performed

her marriage with the petitioner. She further alleged that

the petitioner, his mother and Ms.Prameela tried to kill her

when she was pregnant. The respondent No.1 claimed

that apprehending danger to her life, she joined her

parents and delivered a child on 21.02.2016. She claimed

that though she went to the house of the petitioner on

03.04.2017, she was scorned and abused and was refused

to be accepted into the house. She alleged that many

relatives of the petitioner assaulted her and that she was

admitted at S.N.R hospital, Kolar in respect of which

Crime No.87/2017 was registered against the petitioner

and his mother and others for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 149

of IPC.

3. The respondent No.1 alleged that the

petitioner had an obnoxious habit of watching blue films on

his mobile phone and used to sexually harass her. She

alleged that the petitioner was addicted to bad habits and

came to the house every day intoxicated and used to beat

her up demanding dowry from her parents. She alleged

that the petitioner forced her to dissolve the marriage and

when she refused, petitioner and his mother demanded

that she give permission for petitioner to marry for the

third time. She alleged that the petitioner had more than

50 acres of mango grove from which he was earning

Rs.25,00,000/- per year and he had many houses at

Srinivasapura Taluk from which he was earning rental

income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The respondent No.1

claimed that she was in need of a sum of Rs.40,000/- per

month for her maintenance and her son / respondent No.2

was in need of Rs.40,000/- per month towards his food,

clothing and other activities and also a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards his educational expenses. She

claimed that her husband had all the wherewithal to

maintain her and her son but had neglected them. She,

therefore, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') claiming

maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to herself and a

sum of Rs.40,000/- per month to her son apart from

Rs.1,00,000/- per year towards his educational expenses.

4. The petitioner contested the said petition and

claimed that he was not residing near railway station,

Srinivasapura town as claimed by respondent No.1. He

claimed that he did not own a house in Srinivasapura but

was employed by Sri Lakshman Reddy as a coolie at S.V.N.

Traders of Srinivasapura and was earning a sum of

Rs.300/- per day. He denied that he had married the

respondent No.1 and that she had given birth to

respondent No.2. He claimed that he was neither the

husband of the respondent No.1 nor the father of

respondent No.2 but they were utter strangers. He also

denied all other allegations made against him in the

petition for maintenance. He denied owning 20 houses in

Srinivasapura and denied that he was earning rent of

Rs.2,00,000/- per month from the said houses and he also

denied owning 50 acres of mango grove in his village and

that he was earning Rs.25,00,000/- every year from

agriculture and mango crop from the land. He denied his

liability to maintain respondent Nos.1 and 2. He contended

that he and his mother were not in good terms and

therefore, he executed a release deed dated 15.09.2015 in

favour of his mother relinquishing all his right, title and

interest in the properties by receiving a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- and commenced business in vending

vegetables but incurred loss and thereafter was employed

as a daily wager under Sri Lakshmana Reddy at S.V.N

Traders.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before

the Family Court, the respondent No.1 filed I.A. No.3

under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') seeking

appointment of District Surgeon, SNR Hospital, Kolar as

Court Commissioner to conduct the DNA test of respondent

No.2 and the petitioner to know whether the petitioner was

related to respondent No.2 or not. This application was

seriously opposed by the petitioner. The Family Court in

terms of its Order dated 22.08.2019, allowed the

application and appointed the District Surgeon of S.N.R.

hospital, Kolar as the Commissioner to conduct a DNA

examination as stated above. This order was challenged by

the petitioner in W.P. No.43756/2019 before this Court.

The said writ petition was dismissed as having become

infructuous on 20.02.2023. However, the petitioner failed

to give his blood sample for conducting the DNA test.

6. The Family Court directed the parties to file an

affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Rajnesh v. Neha and another [AIR 2021 SC 569].

Accordingly, both the petitioner and respondent No.1 filed

their affidavits. While the respondent No.1 claimed that

the petitioner was an agriculturist and a trader in mango

and was earning Rs.25,00,000/- per year and that he

possessed several sites and properties in Srinivaspura, the

petitioner claimed that he had no income and no assets.

7. Based on these contentions, the petition was

set down for trial. The respondent No.1 was examined as

PW.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P1 to P59. The

petitioner was examined as RW.1 and he marked

documents as Exs.R1 and R2. He also examined RW.2

who marked a copy of the licence issued by the

Agricultural Produce and Marketing Committee (APMC),

Srinivasapura, as Ex.R3.

8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Family Court held that the respondent No.1 herein had

proved her relationship with the petitioner herein and also

that the respondent No.2 herein was born from the

wedlock. It noticed from the deposition of the petitioner

that he was travelling to the Court in a Toyota innova car

which he claimed belonged to someone else. The Family

Court also noticed that the mother-in-law of respondent

No.1 was an ex-Councillor of Srinivasapura town

Panchayat. The Family Court noticed the conduct of the

petitioner who deposed that he was not even aware about

his siblings, about his maternal uncle and aunt. It also

noticed that the petitioner had denied the wedding album

which contained innumerable photographs of the wedding.

It held that Exs.P36 to 44 were the RTC extracts of the

land in Unkali village of Srinivasapura Taluk that stood in

the name of Sri T. Sonnappa, the father of the petitioner

and Exs.P45 to 55 disclosed that after the death of Sri T.

Sonnappa, the revenue records were transferred in the

name of Smt.Yashodamma, the mother of petitioner which

land was generating enough income. It also held that the

petitioner had deliberately avoided to undergo the DNA

test. It further held that the petitioner had enough

earnings from the land as well as the properties shown in

the affidavit of assets and liabilities furnished by the

respondent No.1 herein and consequently, allowed the

petition and directed the petitioner herein to pay

Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein from

the date of the application till her lifetime or till she

remarries and a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the

respondent No.2 herein from the date of the application till

the date of his attaining majority and a sum of Rs.50,000/-

every year towards educational expenses of the

respondent No.2 herein and a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein towards litigation

expenses.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the

husband has filed this petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the respondent No.1 did not prove her inability to

maintain herself and her son - respondent No.2 and

therefore, the Family Court was not justified in awarding

maintenance. He further contended that the respondent

No.1 did not disclose her assets and liabilities and that she

had no income to maintain herself and therefore, she is

not entitled to any maintenance. He contended that the

quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is

unjustified and exorbitant. He claimed that the petitioner

was not concerned with the land whose revenue records

were marked as Exs.P36 to 42 but claimed that they

belonged to third parties while the land which is the

subject matter of RTC extracts at Exs.P43 to 55 belonged

to petitioner's mother - Smt. Yashodamma. He further

contended that the petitioner had executed a release deed

(Ex.R1) releasing all his rights in the properties in favour

of his mother. He further contended that the land owned

by Smt. Yashodamma was her independent property and

therefore no obligation can be cast on her or her property

to pay the maintenance. He contended that the mother of

the petitioner is entitled to own, possess and enjoy the

usufructs from the land. Learned counsel therefore

contended that the respondent No.1 cannot claim

maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that his

mother has vast landed properties. The learned counsel

contended that the petitioner was a daily wager at the

vegetable market in Srinivasapura and was residing in a

rented house. He contended that Ex.R3 was a licence

issued in favour of Sri A.V. Lakshmana Reddy by the

APMC, Srinivaspura and that he was employed with the

said person as a daily wager. In support of his contention,

the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Rajnesh (supra) as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex court in Shri Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi

And Another [(1975) 2 SCC 386] and Binod Kumar

Singh v. Sushma Devi [2023 (1) AJR 331] .

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the petitioner failed to give his

blood sample to conduct a DNA test as ordered by the

Family Court and therefore, an adverse inference had to be

drawn against him. He further contended that the

marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was

proved by the evidence of PW.2 who attended the

marriage and the same was found in the photographs at

Ex.P29(a). PW.3 was another witness who attended the

marriage along with her husband. She identified a

photograph in which the petitioner and respondent No.1 in

the present case fell at her feet and took her blessing as

Ex.P29(a). The learned counsel contended that the

inpatient record at Ex.P3 issued by Manjunatha Health

Care, Kolar shows that the respondent No.1 delivered the

respondent No.2 through caesarean section and that the

petitioner had consented to the same. The marriage

photographs were produced in an album which is marked

as Ex.P29 and the photographs contained therein showed

the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and

respondent No.1. Learned counsel relied upon the wedding

invitation card and the birth certificate of the respondent

No.2 where the names of his parents are found. He

submitted that these documentary evidence were just

enough to establish the relationship between the parties

and the Family Court after noticing the above had rightly

held that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were related

by marriage and that respondent No.2 was born to them.

He submitted that the conversation of the petitioner with

respondent No.1 over phone which was recorded in a

compact disc was placed before the Family Court as Ex.P59

and the same disclosed the relationship as well as the

conduct of the petitioner. He contended that the family of

the petitioner possessed a large extent of land which was

cultivated by the petitioner and that the family possessed

large number of sites and other properties in Srinivasapura

Town from which they were earning sufficient income and

therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to be

maintained according to their status. The learned counsel

therefore contended that the maintenance awarded by the

Family Court is just and sufficient having regard to the

financial status of the petitioner.

12. This Court tried to mediate a settlement

between the petitioner and respondent No.1. However, the

petitioner was recalcitrant and claimed that he had no

means to pay the maintenance ordered by the Family

Court. He claimed that the properties pointed out by the

respondent No.1 in the petition did not exist and that he

was not aware of the same. At this stage, the learned

counsel for the respondent No.1 placed on record a plaint

in O.S. No.46/2023 filed by Smt. Sarojamma, the maternal

aunt of the petitioner, before the Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC., Srinivasapur for partition and separate possession.

This discloses that 26 items of agricultural lands were

involved in the said suit. The learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 also pointed out that a suit for partition

was filed in O.S. No.10/2023 by the respondent No.2

before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Kolar

in respect of nearly 181 items of properties. Therefore, this

Court in terms of the Order dated 23.03.2023, directed the

District Legal Services Authority, Kolar to verify the

financial status of the petitioner and his family members

and submit a report to this Court by the next date. The

Member Secretary, District Legal services Authority

submitted his report dated 03.04.2023 stating that the

family of the petitioner possessed nearly 56 sites in

Srinivasapura town alone and that the petitioner was

residing in a house at Narasimha Palya at Srinivasapura. It

is further stated in the report that Smt. Yashodamma

possessed nearly 15 guntas of land in Srinivasapura Rural,

04 acres 33 guntas of land in Srinivaspura Amanikere

village, 04 acres 37 guntas in H. Nalapalli village and 01

acre in Kothur village. He reported that the land in Unkali

village of Srinivaspura measuring nearly 15 acres 19

guntas earlier stood in the name of the father of the

petitioner and after his death, the revenue records stood

transferred to the name of his mother, Smt. Yashodamma.

He also reported that some extent of land was gifted to

Smt. Manjulamma, the sister of the petitioner in respect of

which several revenue proceedings and civil cases were

pending. He reported that a trade licence was issued by

APMC yard, Srinivasapura in the name of TSR Traders and

the licence holder was Smt. Yashodamma while the writer

was Sri S. Manjunatha (petitioner herein). It was also

reported that the licence issued by APMC, Srinivasapura in

the name of S.V.N Traders was held by Sri A.V.

Lakshmana Reddy (RW.2) while the writer was Sri S.

Manjunath (petitioner herein). The District Legal Services

Authority also secured the assessment extracts of the sites

mentioned above as well as the revenue records of the

lands mentioned above. It has also placed on record the

application filed for obtaining the licence by

Smt.Yashodamma which shows that TSR Traders was

licenced to do business in vegetables and mango. The

petitioner and his mother who were present in the Court

did not dispute the fact that they possessed a licence to

run a business in APMC, Srinivasapura. This Court noticed

that the mother was aged nearly 70 years and therefore, it

was improbable that she was conducting business and the

fact that the petitioner's name was found as the writer in

respect of TSR Traders and S.V.N traders, it deserves to be

held that the petitioner was indeed conducting business

and was not a daily wager as claimed by him. A perusal of

the record of the Family Court more particularly the

evidence of the petitioner discloses that he made every

attempt to disown his wife and child and also disown his

liability to maintain her and has stooped to the level of not

even knowing the details of his siblings, maternal and

paternal relatives. It is also found that the petitioner

possessed a driving licence to drive a four wheeler and he

deposed that he used to visit the Family Court in a four

wheeler to attend the hearings in the Family Court but

claimed that he was not the owner of the said vehicle. He

did admit that in the driving licence, his residential address

was shown as Narasimha palya of Srinivasapura. He also

admitted that in the ration card, his residential address

was shown as Narasimha Palya. He also admitted that

their family possessed a ration card which was given to

Above Poverty Line people. The aforesaid evidence, the

conduct of the petitioner goes to show that he and

respondent No.1 are estranged and that they are living

separately. There is no material to establish that

respondent No.1 had any source of income and that she

was able to maintain herself. On the contrary, evidence

galore in the case which indicates that the petitioner is

affluent and has undisclosed amount of earnings through

sources that are camouflaged in the name of his mother.

It also discloses that the father of the petitioner owned

nearly 48 sites and 15 acres 19 guntas of land in Unkali

village. The petitioner claimed that he was the only child

and therefore, it can reasonably be held that the petitioner

is earning income of not less than Rs.25,00,000/- per

annum as stated by respondent No.1. Having regard to

the standard of living of the petitioner and respondent

No.1 and also having regard to the nature of expenses and

the cost of living as well as the educational needs and

necessities of the respondent No.2, the impugned Order

passed by the Family Court granting maintenance of

Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein from

the date of the application till her lifetime or till she

remarries and a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the

respondent No.2 herein from the date of the application till

the date of his attaining majority cannot be termed to be

excessive and likewise, the educational expenses of

Rs.50,000/- payable to the respondent No.2 by the

petitioner every year ordered by the Family Court is also

not excessive. Similarly, litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-

payable to respondents herein ordered by the Family Court

is also not excessive. Hence, this petition lacks merit and

is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma