Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 489 Kant
Judgement Date : 5 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:230
RPFC No. 200061 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.200061 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. VEERESH S/O BOODEPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SRI. BHEERALINGESWARA KHANAVALI,
NEAR BEO OFFICE, MANVI, TQ. MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. NAGAMMA W/O VEERESH,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed R/O. NEAR HINDI VARDHAMAN SCHOOL,
by SACHIN
RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 105.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
26.02.2021 IN CRL. MISC. NO.200/2020 PASSED BY THE PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:230
RPFC No. 200061 of 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
2. In this petition, petitioner is assailing the order
dated 26.02.2021 in Criminal Misc. No.200/2020 on the
file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raichur, granting
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the marriage
between the petitioner with the respondent was
solemnized on 22.11.2007 at Manvi. Perusal of the petition
averments would indicate that in their wedlock, three
children were born. Taking into account the fact that the
respondent herein has lodged complaint against the
petitioner herein before the Women Police Station, Raichur
and the same was registered in Crime No.34/2019 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324, 504
and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC, I am of the view that the
respondent has made out a case for granting
NC: 2024:KHC-K:230
maintenance. Needless to say that, though the petitioner
herein was placed exparte before the Family Court, the
notice issued by the Family Court has been served to the
petitioner. In that view of the matter, taking into account
the life being lead by the respondents herein, no
interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!