Karnataka High Court
Ambika @ Sahana And Anr vs Vidyasagar on 5 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:236
RPFC No. 200079 of 2023
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.200079 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. AMBIKA @ SAHANA W/O VIDYASAGAR KUSNOOR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.1-88/13, SAI NAGAR,
BEHIND VATSALYA HOSPITAL,
SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 105.
2. VIVA D/O VIDYASAGAR KUSNOOR,
AGE: 07 YEARS, MINOR U/G OF HER
NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO1.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed VIDYASAGAR S/O HIREGAPPA KUSNOOR,
by SACHIN AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BANK MANAGER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANK OF BARODA, HUBALI,
KARNATAKA R/O BELLAD TOWERS, BANNIGIDA STOP,
GURUKUL ROAD, HUBALI-580 030.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED BY THE
PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KALABURAGI, IN CRL. MISC.
NO.142/2019 AND FURTHER ALLOW THE SAID
CRL.MISC.NO.142/2019 ON FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, KALABURAGI, IN FULL AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:236
RPFC No. 200079 of 2023
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Respondent is served, but remained absent.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners,
challenging the order dated 23.03.2023 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.142/2019 on the file of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Kalaburagi, rejecting the claim made by
petitioner No.1 and granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
per month to petitioner No.2.
3. Having taken note of the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the sole
ground on which the Family Court has rejected the claim
petition made by petitioner No.1 is based on the fact that,
there is no pleading in the petition. However, on careful
examination of paragraph 15 of the impugned order,
petitioner No.1 has deposed that she has left the
matrimonial home on 04.03.2019. In that view of the
matter, the Family Court ought not to have rejected the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:236
claim made by petitioner No.1 by denying maintenance,
being a social legislation. I have also noticed from the
observation made by the Family Court at paragraph 25 of
the order that, the gross salary of respondent was
Rs.1,09,998/-, as he is working as Asst. General Manager
in Bank of Baroda. Therefore, the grant of maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 is inadequate,
taking into account the status of the respondent himself.
In that view of the matter, it is a fit case to remand the
matter to Family Court, Kalaburagi to decide the case of
the parties on merits in the light of the observations made
above and it is also to be noticed that the Family Court
while deciding the matter, shall apply its mind by looking
into the judgments rendered by this Court and the Hon'ble
Apex Court, relating to scope and ambit of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C.
4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the
impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to
the Family Court, Kalaburagi for fresh consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:236
5. Since the matter is of the year 2019, the Family
Court is directed to dispose of the petition within six
months from the appearance of the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
