Karnataka High Court
Gajanan S/O Kushba Rathod vs Sujata W/O Gajanan Rathod And Ors on 8 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
RPFC No. 200008 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200008 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
GAJANAN S/O KUSHBA RATHOD,
AGE : 41 YEARS,
OCC. CIVIL CONTRACTOR
(IT IS NOT CORRECT),
R/O. 38/39 SOPAN BAGH,
NEAR DAGADOBA CHOWK,
CHINCHAWAD-411033.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUJATA W/O GAJANAN RATHOD,
Digitally signed
AGE : 34 YEARS,
by SACHIN OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. YASH S/O GAJANAN RATHOD,
KARNATAKA
AGE : 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
3. RAJ GAJANAN RATHOD,
AGE : 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SINCE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
R/BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1,
ALL ARE R/O. MAKANAPUR,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
RPFC No. 200008 of 2022
THIS RPFC IS FILLED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 22.1.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPURA IN CRIMINAL
MISC.NO.189/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 04.01.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by respondent in
Crl.Misc.No.189/2019 on the file of I Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura awarding maintenance to
the respondents herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the
petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner before the Family
Court that the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized during the year 2007 and in
their wedlock, petitioner nos.2 and 3 were born. It further
stated in the petition that after 10 years of their marriage,
the respondent left his employment with ICICI Bank and
LENDE Company and started his own business with
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
another partner by name Pratibha Chowdary. It is stated
in the petition that the respondent is having illicit
relationship with the said co-partner in the business. It is
further stated that the petitioner No.1 requested the
respondent to leave the business in the said partnership
firm; however she faced inhuman treatment from the
respondent. It is also stated that the respondent was
harassing the children and therefore without tolerating the
inhuman treatment meted out by them, the petitioners left
the matrimonial home and residing in the parental house.
It is stated in the petition that she has studied upto 9th
standard and respondent is willfully neglecting the
petitioners and as such the petitioners have filed
Crl.Misc.No.189/2019 on the file of the Family Court,
seeking maintenance.
4. After service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objection denying the
averments made in the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
5. It is the specific contention of the respondent
that he never deserted the petitioner No.1 and the
petitioner No.1 herself deserted the respondent and was
ready to take back the petitioners and to lead the marital
life. It further stated that petitioner No.1 is an arrogant
lady and he was running business in the name of
petitioner No.1 and the said business is closed on account
of not renewing of the licence and there is no source of
income on account of the closure of the said firm and
accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. In order to establish their case, the petitioner
No.1 herself was examined as PW.1 and produced 16
documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.16.
The respondent was examined as RW.1 and produced 12
documents and same were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R12.
7. The Family Court after considering the martial
on record by its order dated 22.01.2021, allowed the claim
petition in part by awarding `10,000/- per month as
maintenance to petitioner No.1 and `5,000/- per month
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the respondent has preferred this revision petition.
8. I have heard Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Arunkumar
Amargundappa, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
9. Sri Basavaraj R.Math learned counsel appearing
for petitioners herein argued that the award of
maintenance made by the Family Court is unscientific and
without looking into the material on record. He further
contended that respondent No.1 herein is having a factory
in the name and style "M/s Gayatri Sales" and in this
regard, income tax returns are filed as per Ex.R1 to Ex.R3
and as the said company was closed, at the instance of
petitioner No.1, due to non-renewal of licence, the
petitioner herein has no means to pay the maintenance to
the respondent herein. It is further contended that
respondent No.1 is running Beauty Parlor and catering
business at Pune and she is having sufficient income from
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
the said business and accordingly sought for interference
of this Court.
10. Per contra, Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa
learned counsel appearing for respondents sought to
justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. He
further contended that respondent No.1 herein has studied
up to 9th standard and therefore, the entire business was
conducted by petitioner herein in the name of respondent
No.1 herein and on account of the same the respondents
herein have no means to lead life and have become
destitute and accordingly sought for dismissal of the
petition.
11. In light of submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully
considered the finding recorded by the Family Court and
perused the original records. It is not in dispute between
the parties with regard to their relationship. In their
wedlock two children were born and they are in the
custody of respondent No.1-mother. Perusal of the record
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
would also indicate that the respondent No.1 had studied
upto 9th standard. In the backdrop of this aspect, I have
carefully examined the dealership agreement between the
Safari Industries (India) Limited with M/s Gaytri Sales, a
partnership firm, as per Ex.P.8 would indicate that the said
M/s Gayatri Sales is being represented by its partners
Mr.Gajnan S/o Kushaba Rathod (petitioner herein) and
another partner Mrs.Pratibha Anil Chowdary and the said
dealership agreement stand in the name of petitioner
herein. It is also forthcoming from Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 that
the residential premises standing in the name of petitioner
herein. It is evident from Ex.P.13 that the M/s Gayatri
Sales is conducting business, dealing with sale of articles
belonging to the Safari Industries. In that view of the
matter, though the income tax returns produced at Ex.R1
stand in the name of the respondent No.1 herein, however
the entire business is being conducted by the petitioner
No.1 herein as per the dealership licence produced at
Ex.P.8.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
12. I have carefully examined the finding recorded
by the Family Court wherein the Family Court after
considering the material on record and looking into the
status and hardship that has caused to the respondents
herein, rightly come to the conclusion to award
maintenance to the respondents herein. Though the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner herein is not working on account of
closure of his business, however same is not a basis to
arrive at a conclusion to deny maintenance to the
respondents herein. Undisputedly application is filed by the
respondents herein under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and in view of judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui
vs. Shahid Khan1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
after considering the scope and ambit of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C in light of the provisions contained under Article
15(3) of the Constitution of India, held that it is the duty
of the husband to look after the wife and children, during
(2015) 5 SCC 705
NC: 2024:KHC-K:285
the subsistence of the marriage. In that view of the
matter, having considered the finding recorded by the
Family Court whereby the Family Court has considered the
entire aspects on record in detail and rightly has granted
maintenance to respondents and therefore there is no
perversity in the order passed by the Family Court and as
this Court is having limited jurisdiction in revisional
aspects to interfere with the well reasoned order passed
by the Family Court, I am of the view that there is no
merit in the petition and accordingly, petition is dismissed
as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
