Sri Lokesh vs Smt Bhagya
2024 Latest Caselaw 3583 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Lokesh vs Smt Bhagya on 6 February, 2024

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

                                                       -1-
                                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:5091
                                                               RPFC No. 28 of 2018




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                                   BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
                                    REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.28 OF 2018
                          BETWEEN:

                                SRI. LOKESH,
                                S/O LATE VENKATARANGASHETTY,
                                AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                                R/AT DOOR NO.474,
                                NACHANAHALLI, MYSORE TALUK,
                                MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 078.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                          (BY SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA H.K., ADVOCATE)
                          AND:

                          1.    SMT. BHAGYA,
                                W/O LOKESH,
                                AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

                          2.    ABHISHEK,
                                S/O LOKESH,
Digitally signed by JAI
                                AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.
JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
                          3.    RAHUL,
                                S/O LOKESH,
                                AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

                                ALL ARE R/AT
                                DOOR NO. 474, NACHANAHALLI,
                                MYSORE TALUK,
                                MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 078.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

                          (BY SRI. JAY KISHAN SHARMA, AMICUS CURIAE;
                               R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)
                                -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:5091
                                         RPFC No. 28 of 2018




     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19[4] OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT.1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2017
PASSED IN C.MISC.372/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDL.PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT MYSURU ALLOWING THE
PETITION   FILED  UNDER   SEC.125   OF   CR.P.C. FOR
MAINTENANCE.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                          ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the husband calling in

question the order of maintenance granted in

C.Mis.No.372/2016 dated 06.10.2017 passed by the I

Additional Principal Family Court at Mysuru, praying to set

aside the maintenance of amount granted by the Family

Court.

2. The relationship between the

petitioner/husband and respondents/wife and children are

not disputed. Respondent No.1/wife have made allegation

that the petitioner has consummated second marriage and

living with second wife and started harassment. Hence,

the petitioners were constrained to reside separately and

filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and Family Court

NC: 2024:KHC:5091

granted maintenance of Rs.5,400/- to the respondent

No.1/wife and Rs.2,500/- to the both respondent Nos.2

and 3/children from the date of petition.

3. Notice issued to the respondent is served but

they remained absent. The respondents are wife and

minor children are entitled free legal heir as per Section 13

of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987. Sri. Jai Kishan

Sharma learned advocate is appointed as counsel for the

respondent and amicus curiae in this case assist the case.

4. Heard the arguments from learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned amicus curiae.

5. When the relationship between the petitioner

and respondents are not disputed as above discussed,

then it is bound down duty of the petitioner - husband to

maintain his wife and children. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in catena of decisions has held that it is legal as well

and pious obligation to maintain wife and children when

wife and children are unable to maintain themselves. The

NC: 2024:KHC:5091

respondent No.1 - wife is living along with respondent

Nos.2 and 3 - two minor children. Therefore, the

respondents are suffering more hardship compared to the

petitioner - husband. Perusal of the evidence on record

and the admission of the petitioner during the course of

cross-examination before the trial Court, it is revealed that

the petitioner was residing in the house belonging to his

deceased father; his ancestral properties in Sy.No.19/B

and 25/B of Nachanahallipalya are acquired by MUDA for

permission of layout and a site measuring 60x40 feet was

allotted in his name in lieu of compensation towards

acquisition of land. The petitioner has married and living

with the second wife. This proves that the petitioner -

husband is financially viable person to maintain the

respondents - wife and children. Therefore, considering

all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family

Court is correct in granting the maintenance amount. The

petition is devoid of merits calling interference to the order

passed by the Family Court. Hence, petition is hereby

dismissed for devoid of merits.

NC: 2024:KHC:5091

6. Sri.Jay Kishan Sharma, learned counsel is

appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court and learned

Amicus Curiae has assisted well in the case enabling the

Court to come to right conclusion. Therefore, his service

is placed on record. The Secretary, High Court Legal

Services Committee is directed to pay professional fee as

per norms upon production of certified copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CT:SNN