Karnataka High Court
Radhamani vs B. Manjunath on 3 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:210
RPFC No. 39 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 39 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. RADHAMANI,
WIFE OF B. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
2. BHASKAR,
SON OF B. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO. 2 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN-1ST PETITIONER.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
AVALIPALYA, KORA HOBLI,
Digitally signed by TUMKUR,
RAMYA D
Location: HIGH COURT
KARNATAKA - 572 101.
OF KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
B. MANJUNATH,
SON OF BHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING IN FITWELL FACTORY,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:210
RPFC No. 39 of 2017
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
AND RESIDING AT
YALLAPURA, TUMKUR,
KARNATAKA - 572 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2016
PASSED IN C.MIS 47/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY 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
The petition is filed by the wife and son for seeking
enhancement of maintenance amount. The petitioner No.1 is
the wife and the petitioner No.2 is the minor son of the
respondent. The relationship between the parties is not
disputed as they are husband, wife and child. The Family Court
has granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to
the petitioner No.1 - wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the
petitioner No.2 - son.
NC: 2024:KHC:210
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
amount granted by the Family Court is not sufficient to lead the
life in Tumakuru City. Hence, prays for enhancement of
maintenance amount.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent - husband
submitted that the respondent has to look after his old aged
parents and sister-in-law and there are huge members in the
family. He further contends that the maintenance amount
awarded by the Family Court is just and appropriate. Hence,
prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent
that the respondent has resigned his job at Fit Well Factory,
Tumakuru due to ill-health and presently working as a Daily
Wager and has spent huge sum towards medical treatment. At
the same time, maintaining life at Tumakuru City by mother
and child with maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/-, awarded by
the Family Court is not sufficient even though the petitioner
No.1 may be working in a Factory as per submission made by
the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, considering
the evidence on record and it is also admitted that the
respondent is receiving rent and is having sites, the respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:210
is relieved from financial burden. Furthermore, there is no
evidence to prove that the respondent has resigned from his
service and is presently working as a Daily Wager to earn his
livelihood. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the
petitioners, who are wife and son of the respondent are entitled
for enhancement of maintenance amount. It is just and
appropriate to enhance maintenance amount. Hence, the
following:-
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed-in-part.
ii. The order passed in C.Mis.No.47/2014 dated
27.08.2016 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at
Tumakuru is hereby modified to the extent that the
petitioner No.1 - wife is entitled to additional
maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- and petitioner
No.2 - son is entitled to additional maintenance of
Rs.1,000/-, in addition to what has been granted by
the Family Court respectively from the date of
petition.
iii. No order as to costs.
NC: 2024:KHC:210
iv. The respondent shall pay maintenance amount
without fail as per order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MH/-
CT:SNN
