Karnataka High Court
Tulsidas vs Tushar on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2829
RPFC No. 200011 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200011 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
TULSIDAS
S/O SUBHASCHANDRA BANDAGER
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: INDARNI NAGAR SUMANGAI SHREE
BUILDING FLAT NO.63, PUNA CITY,
NOW R/O DUTTARGAV VILLAGE
POST KADAGANCHI, TQ: ALAND
DIST:KALABURAGI-585311.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHARAMAGOUDA K. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH TUSHAR
MATHAPATI S/O TULSIDAS BANDAGAR
Location: High
Court of AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
Karnataka R/O: PLOT NO.4, NAVAJEEVAN NAGAR,
P AND T COLONY, OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI UNDER CASE AND CUSTODY
OF HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
TEJESWINI W/O TULSIDAS BANDAGAR
P AND T COLONY, OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI DIST: KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2829
RPFC No. 200011 of 2024
THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT KALABURAGI IN
CRL. MISC. NO.23/2020 DATED: 22.12.2023 AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE RESPONDENT'S
CLAIM OF MAINTENANCE IN CRL. MISC. NO. 23/2020 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is preferred by the petitioner - Tulsidas
who was the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.23/2020 seeking to
to set aside the order dated 22.12.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.23/2020 by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Kalaburagi [for short, 'the Family Court'].
2. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1
remained absent and un-represented.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order passed by the Family Court is
arbitrary, contrary to law and records of the case. The
earning status of the petitioner has been wrongly assessed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2829
by the Court below. That there is no material placed to
assess the income of the revision petitioner. That the
mother of respondent is working as Principal and from that
she earns Rs.40,000/- per month and the same is not
considered by the Family Court. The petitioner has to look
after his old aged parents and he has no sufficient income
to pay maintenance. The mother of the respondent
deserted by herself from the company of revision
petitioner. The revision petitioner has called several
panchayats to take back the revision petitioner. That on
panchayat, the mother of respondent refused to join the
company of the petitioner. On these grounds, he sought to
allow this revision petition and seeks to dismiss the claim
of maintenance of the respondent.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
Family Court, it is crystal clear that one Smt.Tejaswini
W/o: Tulsidas Bandagar, Aged: 36 years, filed a petition
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of
Rs.45,000/- per month. Considering the evidence placed
by both the parties, the Family Court dismissed the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2829
petition filed by petitioner No.1 and in respect of petitioner
No.2 granted maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per
month from the date of petition till he attains the age of
majority, who is son of present petitioner.
6. The Family Court in paragraph Nos.14 to 16,
has observed as under;
14. Of course the petitioners have not
produced any evidence with respect to the
income of respondent. But Ex.R.4 produced by
him reveal that he was working from 1st April
2018 to March-2020 in Sai Sound Control
System Pvt. Ltd., as a Production manager and
on 01-03-2020 he gave resignation. This petition
is filed on 10-02-2020. So it is very clear that
during the pendency of this petition he resigned
the job. In his cross examination he stated that
he has purchased one site and obtained LIC in
the name of petitioners and also admitted that
he owned 12 acres of land as per Ex.R.2. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2829
respondent inspite of the opportunity given has
not filed his affidavit of liabilities and also bank
statement though it is mandatory in view of the
Judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Rajanish V / s Neha case. Further Ex. R.4 does
not reveal that he resigned the job due to
marital dispute. It is hard to believe that the
person who is having qualification and was
working in a reputed company would resign the
job and sit idle. Therefore his contention that he
is not working cannot be accepted. In view of the
non filing of affidavit and assets and liabilities
and bank statement, adverse inference is to be
drawn that, he is not having income. Considering
all these facts I hold that it is proved that he is
having sufficient income to provide maintenance.
15. When the petitioner failed to prove that she
has no sufficient income to maintain herself, but
it is proved by the respondent that she is having
sufficient income working as Headmaster in City
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2829
model School, Kalaburagi, she is not entitled for
maintenance from the respondent. But petitioner
No.2 is school going child. Petitioner No.1 and
respondent being employee are bound to
maintain him. So considering the status of
petitioner No.1 and respondent I hold that the
petitioner No.2 is entitled maintenance
Rs.10,000/- per month from them. Apart from
that the respondent and petitioner No.1 shall
bear his yearly School/college fees.
16. In view of these discussion point No.1 in the
affirmative 2 and 3 partly affirmative."
7. The respondent minor Tushar has filed this
petition in the year 2020. At that time his age was 13
years and now the age of the respondent is 17 years. The
Family Court has passed the order to pay maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition till he
attains the age of majority. On re-appreciation of the
evidence on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2829
in the impugned order passed by the Family Court.
Considering the financial capacity of both the parties, the
Family Court directed to pay the Rs.10,000/- per month to
the petitioner No.2 only, which is just and reasonable.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of petition, IA.No.1/2024
does not require for consideration. Accordingly,
IA.No.1/2024 is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT: VD
