Karnataka High Court
Manjula And Anr vs Kantappa on 8 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:314
RPFC No. 200032 of 2022
C/W RPFC No. 200090 of 2023
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. 200032 OF 2022
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200090 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
KANTAPPA S/O SOMALINGAPPA SURANGAD,
AGE: 38 YEARS,OCC. SOLDIER,
R/O. BEERALADINNI,
TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D P AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. MANJULA W/O KANTAPPA SURANGAD
D/O MUTTAPPA HATTARAKIHAL,
AGE. 24 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. UTNAL,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-584101.
2. KRUTIKA D/O KANTAPPA SURANGAD
AGE. 3 YEARS, MINOR,
R/BY NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:314
RPFC No. 200032 of 2022
C/W RPFC No. 200090 of 2023
(BY SRI.SANGANABASAVA B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
& SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & ORDER DATED 23.11.2021
PASSED BY THE I ADDL PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
VIJAYAPURA, IN CRL.MISC NO.617/2019, AND FURTHER
DISMISS THE SAID CRL.MISC NO.617/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDL PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPURA, AND
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER RELIEFS BE GRANTED TO WHICH
THE PETITIONER WOULD BE FOUND ENTITLED TO ON THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
IN RPFC NO. 200090 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. MANJULA W/O KANTAPPA SURANGAD,
D/O MUTTAPPA HUTTARAKIHAL,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDENT UTNAL,
TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR.
2. KRUTIKA
D/O KANTAPPA SURANGAD,
AGE: 04 YEARS, MINOR,
R/BY NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KANTAPPA
S/O SOMALINGAPPA SURANGAD,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:314
RPFC No. 200032 of 2022
C/W RPFC No. 200090 of 2023
OCC: SOLIDIER,
R/O BEERALADINNI,
TQ. B.BAGEWADI,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 IN
CRL.MISC.NO:617/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.PRL.JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT AT VIJAYAPUR, THEREBY ENHANCING THE
MAINTENANCE AMOUNT TO RS.4,000/- PER MONTH OF
PETITIONER NO.1 AND RS.3,000/- PER MONTH OF PETITIONER
NO.2 PER MONTH BY ALLOWING THE SAID REVISION
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. In these petitions, the challenge has been
made to order dated 23.11.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.617 of
2020 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family
NC: 2024:KHC-K:314
Court, Vijayapura, granting maintenance to the wife and
child.
3. RPFC No.200032 of 2022 is filed by the
respondent-husband challenging the order of
maintenance made by the Family Court and RPFC No.
200090 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking
enhancement of maintenance.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in
this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status
and ranking before the Family Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for
the parties, it is not dispute that marriage of the
petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on
14.04.2016 and in their wedlock the petitioner No.2 is
born. It is also recorded by the Family Court that there
is family rift between the parties and they are residing
separately.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:314
6. Taking into account the occupation of the
respondent-husband that he is working as Constable at
BSF as himself admitted and further he is getting salary
of Rs.48,000/- per month and that apart, he is owning
11 acres of land as per Ex.P8-RTC Extract, I am of the
opinion that, maintenance amount granted by the
Family Court is inadequate, taking into account the
status of the petitioner-wife and future prospects of the
child, with that of the respondent-husband.
7. It is needless to say that, petitioner No.2 is a
minor child and has to pursue his education and further,
I am of the opinion that, the petitioner No.1 is entitled
for maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month as against
Rs.4,000/- granted by the Family Court and on the other
hand, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for maintenance of
Rs.6,000/- as against Rs.3,000/- granted by the Family
Court. Accordingly, the maintenance granted by the
Family Court has been increased as stated above. In
NC: 2024:KHC-K:314
that view of the matter, RPFC No.200032 of 2022 filed
by the respondent-husband is dismissed and RPFC
No.200090 of 2023 filed by the petitioner-wife and child
is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
