Karnataka High Court
Nagarathna vs Kemparaju on 9 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1354
RPFC No. 193 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.193 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARATHNA
W/O KEMPARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
2. DURGASHREE
D/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS
SINCE MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN-1ST PETITIONER
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SASALU VILLAGE,
HONNUDIKE POST, GULUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 572 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed by SRI. Y.T ABHINAY, ADVOCATE)
RAMYA D
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AND:
KEMPARAJU
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT SIDDEBEGUR VILLAGE,
MULUKUNTE POST,
HEBBUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 572 101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. KESHAV MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1354
RPFC No. 193 of 2016
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1964, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.9.2016 PASSED IN C.MIS.No.2/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT TUMAKURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The revision petition is filed by the wife and child
seeking enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by
the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, in
C.Misc.No.2/2015.
2. The relationship between the petitioners and
respondent is not disputed. The petitioner No.1 is the wife
of respondent and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of
respondent and petitioner No.1. It is the case of the
petitioners that marriage of the petitioner No.1 along with
respondent was performed against her wishes and then
respondent started to assault and ill-treat petitioner
No.1/wife and was demanding to bring more dowry
amount. Even the parents of petitioner No.1/wife paid the
amount to the respondent for purchase of goats, but the
NC: 2024:KHC:1354
respondent/husband continued to ask the amount. When
the parents of petitioner No.1/wife failed to pay some
more amount, the respondent started to ill-treat the
petitioners and the petitioners were constrained to desert
the respondent. Therefore, petitioners filed a petition
seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the
Family Court has granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month
as maintenance to petitioner No.2/child and rejected the
maintenance in respect of petitioner No.1/wife.
3. Being aggrieved by this, wife and child have
preferred this revision petition.
4. The relationship between the petitioners and
respondent is not disputed as discussed above. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent/husband that even though the parents of the
respondent are having 1½ acres agricultural land, it is
respondent who is cultivating the said land and is earning
some amount of income to lead the family. At the same
time, petitioner No.1 being the wife, though constrained to
NC: 2024:KHC:1354
work in garments factory, it is inevitable for them to work
for their livelihood. Therefore, just because the wife is
working in garments factory, it does not exonerate the
responsibility on the part of respondent/husband to
maintain his wife. It is submitted that petitioner
No.2/child is deaf and dumb and she is being looked after
by petitioner No.1/wife. Therefore, petitioner No.1/wife is
constrained to nurture and look after her physically
disabled child and for the said reason, the child requires
some more maintenance amount. Just because the sister
of petitioner No.1/wife is residing in the respondent's
house and she is comfortable in the home, that cannot be
a ground to deny the maintenance amount to the
petitioner No.1/wife.
5. The petitioners were constrained to leave the
companionship of the respondent/husband. Therefore, the
wife also requires maintenance amount. Hence, in this
regard, the maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded
to the petitioner No.1/wife and additional sum of
NC: 2024:KHC:1354
Rs.1,000/- is awarded to petitioner No.2/child in addition
to what has been awarded by the Family Court,
considering that respondent/husband along with his
parents has only 1½ acres of agricultural land.
6. In terms of the above, the petition is liable to
be allowed in part. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed in part.
(ii) A sum of Rs.2,000/- is awarded to
petitioner No.1/wife and additional sum
of Rs.1,000/- is awarded to petitioner
No.2/child in addition to what has been
awarded by the Family Court from the
date of petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
