Karnataka High Court
Mallanagouda S/O Bhimagouda Gouda vs Smt Hanamakka W/O Mallangouda Gouddra on 30 May, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
RPFC No. 100131 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100131/2023
BETWEEN:
MALLANAGOUDA
S/O. BHIMAGOUDA GOUDA,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YALAGACHHA,
TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI - 581 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. HANAMAKKA
W/O. MALLANGOUDA GOUDRA,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AGASANAMATTI,
TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI - 581 110.
Digitally signed
2. SUMITRA
by YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
D/O. MALLANAGOUDA GOUDRA,
Location: High
Court of
AGE: 26 YEARS,
Karnataka OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AGASANAMATTI,
TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI - 581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED;
R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.07.2023, IN
CRL.MISC. NO.95/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, HAVERI AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
RPFC No. 100131 of 2023
ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the husband aggrieved
by the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.95/2022 on the file of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Haveri.
2. The respondent-wife herein filed a petition
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the
petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
contending that her marriage with the petitioner was
solemnised about 30 years ago as per the Hindu customs
at Iranna Temple situated at Choudayyanapur village,
Ranebennur taluk. Out of their marriage, two daughters
were born to the petitioner and respondent No.1. There
arose marital discord between the petitioner and the
respondent No.1. That the petitioner has completely
neglected the respondent No.1 and he has been residing
with one Yallavva in Agadi village. The respondent-wife
has been residing with her mother along with her children.
She does not have any financial ability to maintain her and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
her daughters. As such, she had filed a petition for
maintenance before Ranebennur Court. With the
intervention of the elders, a panchayat was conducted, in
terms of which the petitioner had made arrangement for
the respondent-wife to reside in the house belonging to
the petitioner situated at Agasanamatti village, in terms of
which, the respondent-wife has been residing with her
daughters. However, after some time, the petitioner-
husband had forcefully taken away the elder daughter
namely Netravati, who was aged 4 years from the custody
of the respondent-wife and he has been residing with
another woman in Agadi village. The respondent-wife
having no option has been doing coolie work for her
maintenance and livelihood. Though the respondent-wife
has been requesting the petitioner-husband to provide for
maintenance and also perform the marriage of their
daughters who were grown, he refused. The respondent-
wife who is now presently aged about 55 years, due to her
old age, cannot carry on with her coolie work and having
no other means for the survival has filed the petition. It is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
contended that petitioner-husband is owning agricultural
lands and deriving income therefrom. Since the petitioner-
husband refused and neglected to provide for maintenance
of the respondent-wife, she is constrained to file petition
seeking direction to the petitioner-husband to provide
maintenance.
3. The petitioner-husband filed statement of
objections admitting the marital relationship between him
and the respondent-wife. He denied respondent-wife
giving birth to two daughters. However, he admitted first
daughter Netravati having born to the petitioner-husband.
That the respondent-wife had filed maintenance petition
against the petitioner-husband and had also filed a false
criminal case against the petitioner-husband, his elder
brother and father, which cases ended in acquittal for want
of evidence. That the respondent-wife on her own left the
matrimonial home and refused to lead a normal life with
the petitioner-husband despite advice from the elders. She
had also given consent to the petitioner-husband to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
contract another marriage accordingly the petitioner-
husband had married one Yallavva and living with her, and
he has got four daughters born to the said Yallavva. He
further contended that the respondent-wife had expressed
her unwillingness to lead life with the petitioner-husband,
accordingly in the settlement arrived at before the elders,
the respondent-wife was allowed to reside in one of the
houses belonging to the petitioner-husband situated at
Agasanamatti village during the year 1995. Ever since
then, there has been no relationship in any nature
whatsoever between the respondent and the petitioner.
That the allegation of petitioner-husband leading illicit
relationship is also made. The respondent-wife examined
herself as PW1 and also another witness as PW2 and
exhibited 9 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. Petitioner-
husband examined himself as RW1 and another witness as
RW2 and exhibited 5 documents marked as Exs.R1 to R5
and closed his side.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
4. The Family Court framed the following points
for its consideration and on appreciation of evidence,
answered point No.1 to 4 in the affirmative, point No.5
partly affirmative:
"1. Whether the petition of the petitioner No.1 is
maintainable?
2. Whether the petitioner No.1 proves that the
respondent has refused or neglected to maintain
her?
3. Whether the petitioner No.1 proves that she is
unable to maintain herself?
4. Whether the petitioner No.1 proves that the
respondent has sufficient means to pay
maintenance to her?"
5. On appreciation of the evidence, the Family
Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent-wife
is entitled and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/-
per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner-husband is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
6. Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the memorandum of petition vehemently
submits that on an earlier occasion, the respondent-wife
had filed similar petition seeking maintenance which ended
in a compromise in terms of which the respondent-wife
has been given residential house along with gold
ornaments which has been admitted by her during the
cross-examination. Thus, he submits that in view of the
claim for maintenance made by the respondent-wife on
earlier occasion having been settled and satisfied, the
present petition filed after lapse of 30 years, is only to
harass the petitioner-husband. There being no genuine
requirement of respondent-wife wanting any provision for
maintenance. He further submits that the respondent-wife
has filed a suit for partition of the properties belonging to
the petitioner-husband and the same is pending
consideration. He also adds that the respondent-wife is
growing vegetables in-front of the house given to her by
the petitioner-husband and since she has source of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
livelihood, she is not entitled for the maintenance as
sought for. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
7. Heard and perused the records.
8. Though notice of this petition was issued and
served on the respondent-wife, she has remained absent.
9. Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent
is not in dispute. The fact that they have been residing
separately from the year 1995, is also not in dispute. The
petitioner-husband himself has admitted that he is married
for the second time to one Yallavva and he is residing with
her along with their four daughters. The contention of the
respondent-wife is that, due to old age she is not able to
carry on with her coolie work for her sustenance.
Therefore, she was constrained to file present petition
seeking assistance of the Court, directing the petitioner-
husband to pay monthly maintenance.
10. The petitioner-husband objected the claim on
the ground of there been a settlement between the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
petitioner and the respondent, having arrived at in the
year 1995, in which the respondent-wife was given a
residential accommodation belonging to the petitioner-
husband. Though the said settlement has been admitted
by the respondent-wife, there is nothing on record to show
that any provision has been made for daily
sustenance/maintenance for the respondent-wife. The
respondent-wife has categorically pleaded that after the
separation and settlement for earlier claim, she was doing
coolie work to maintain her and that due to old age, she is
not in a position to continue with the coolie work.
Therefore, she has sought assistance of this Court.
11. The petitioner-husband does not dispute the
subsistence of marriage of the respondent-wife with him.
Though he admits that he married for the second time
upon a purported consent given by the respondent-wife,
he has not produced any document to show he has made
any provision for her maintenance /daily sustenance.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
12. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that since the respondent-wife was given a
residential house with some gold ornaments in the year
1995, she is not entitled for any maintenance that too
after a period of 30 years, cannot be countenanced for the
reason that though a residential accommodation is
provided, no provision for her daily sustenance is made.
The allegation of respondent-wife not living with the
petitioner-husband also cannot be sustained as admittedly
the petitioner-husband has married for the second time
and he is living with his four daughters born to the second
wife. In such circumstances, he cannot except the
respondent-wife to come and stay with him.
13. The trial Court taking note of these factual
aspects of the matter and also the law laid down with
regard to the obligation of the husband to maintain the
wife and children, came to the conclusion that the
respondent-wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs.6000/-
per month, accordingly, partly allowing the petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7212
14. In the aforesaid factual background of the
matter, since admittedly the petitioner-husband has not
made any provision for her daily maintenance, merely
because the respondent-wife has knocked at the doors of
this Court after considerable period of time, cannot be
driven away and this Court do not see any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the Family Court
granting Rs.6000/- per month as her maintenance.
15. No grounds made out, petition lacks merit.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
KGK/CT-ASC
