Karnataka High Court
Smt.Vijaylaxmi W/O Basavaraj Pille vs Shri.Basavaraj on 31 May, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
RPFC No. 100018 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100018/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VIJAYLAXMI W/O. BASAVARAJ BELLI,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O: ADAVI SOMAPUR,
TQ AND DIST: GADAG - 582 101.
2. KUMARI NIVEDITA
D/O. BASAVARAJ BELLI,
AGE: 2 YEARS, (SINCE MINOR REP. BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
PETITIONER NO.1).
...PETITIONERS
(BY KAVERI G. KURAVATTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally SHRI BASAVARAJ
signed by
YASHAVANT S/O. NANDESHAPPA BELLI,
NARAYANKAR
Location: High
AGE: 33 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: ADAVISOMAPUR,
TQ AND DIST: GADAG - 582 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY YALAGI KAVYA SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
11.12.2019 IN CRL.MISC. NO.68/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE I
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
RPFC No. 100018 of 2020
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, GADAG PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition is by the wife and daughter of the
respondent herein seeking enhancement of monthly
maintenance amount awarded by the I Addl. Family Court,
Gadag by its order dated 11.12.2019 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.68/2019.
2. The above petition is filed by the petitioners
herein against the respondent under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance on the premise that
the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
respondent and their marriage was solemnised on
05.05.2011 at Adivisomapur village, Gokak taluk as per
Hindu rituals prevailing in the community. It is contended
that at the time of marriage, parents of the petitioner had
paid Rs.25,000/- and apart from gold ornaments,
household articles worth Rs.80,000/- were also given.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
That petitioner No.1 and the respondent led marital life for
about one year, during which period, the respondent
subjected petitioner No.1 to physical and mental
harassment, and did not even provide maintenance for
basic requirement of the petitioners. It is alleged that the
respondent was addicted to bad vices. Even the parents of
respondent had subjected the petitioner to physical
harassment. Petitioner No.1 gave birth to petitioner No.2
on 27.03.2017. Even after the birth of petitioner No.2,
respondent did not provide any provisions for their
maintenance. That when the child was 5 months old,
parents of petitioner No.1 took them to their home and
ever since then, they have been residing with them. It is
contended that the respondent had filed a suit in
S.C.No.1/2019 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Gadag against the petitioner No.1 and her parents
claiming damages, which suit was dismissed on
26.02.2019. Petitioner No.1 is always ready and willing to
stay and lead marital life with the respondent. However,
respondent suspecting the fidelity of the petitioner No.1
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
has been subjecting the petitioner for harassment. It is
contended that the respondent is having 4 acres of
irrigated land at Adavisomapura village. In addition to
residential house, having annual income of the property
around Rs.8,00,000/-, and the respondent is capable of
maintaining the petitioners. Petitioners require
Rs.10,000/- each for their existence. Their request and
demand for providing maintenance was refused by the
respondent. Hence, the petition was filed.
3. Respondent who appeared pursuant to the
notice issued by the Family Court filed a statement of
objection denying the very marriage of the Petitioner No.1
with him and also denied the paternity of the Petitioner
No.2. It is contended by the respondent that there was an
engagement conducted between the Petitioner No.1 with
the respondent. However, the marriage was not
solemnized between them. It is further contended that the
parents of the Petitioner No.1 had got the Petitioner No.1
married with one Manjunatha Belli and the child-Petitioner
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
No.2, is born to the said Manjunath and the Petitioner
No.1.
4. It is also contended that the respondent
incurred loss of Rs.50,000/- which he had spent for the
engagement. That he had filed a suit in O.S.No.1/2019 for
recovery of the said amount and the same was pending
consideration.
5. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and
exhibited 18 documents which were marked at Ex.P.1 to
P.18 and also examined additional witnesses. Respondent
examined himself as R.W.1 and exhibited 04 documents at
Ex.R.1 to R.4.
6. On consideration of the contentions and the
evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court framed the
following points for its consideration:
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that
the 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of
respondent and the 2nd petitioner is born
out of the said wedlock?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
2. Whether the petitioners prove that
the respondent, having sufficient means,
failed and neglected to maintain the
petitioners?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
each from the respondent as prayed for?
4. What order?"
7. The Trial Court answered Point Nos.1 and 2 in
the affirmative, Point No.3 partly in the affirmative and
consequently partly allowed the petition granting the
compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the Petitioner No.1 and
Rs.1,000/- to the Petitioner No.2 directing the respondent
to pay the same from the date of petition. That apart, a
sum of Rs.5,000/- was also directed to paid towards the
litigation expenses. Being aggrieved with the same, the
petitioners are before this Court seeking enhancement of
compensation of maintenance.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating
the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
submitted that though the Family Court negated the
contention taken up by the respondent disputing the
marriage and though the Family Court has prima-facie
found the Petitioner No.1 to be the wife of respondent and
Petitioner No.2 to be the child of the respondent, however
awarded meager amount of maintenance.
9. She further submits that the respondent has
not disputed the fact of he owning 04 acres of agriculture
land, he also not disputed that he earning about
Rs.8,00,000/- per annum. Thus, it is her submission that
though the Family Court has taken note of the source of
income of the respondent has awarded a meager amount
of compensation not commensurating to the requirement
of the petitioners. Hence, she seeks for allowing of the
petition enhancing the maintenance.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently opposing the petition submits that the
respondent has specifically and categorically denied the
very marriage of the Petitioner No.1 with the respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
He also denied the paternity of the Petitioner No.2. He
submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to undergo
DNA test to prove that he is not the father of the child.
She submits that the respondent had even filed a suit
seeking damages which though has been dismissed and
appeal has been filed and the same is pending
consideration. Thus, he submits that the Family Court
erred in granting the maintenance and the petitioners are
not entitled for enhancement of the same and seeks for
dismissal of the present petition.
11. Heard and perused the records.
12. It is settled position of law that the proceedings
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') are
summary proceedings. All that, the Court is required to
examine if the petitioner had established and justified
prima-facie relationship of husband and wife. In instant
case, the Petitioner No.1 apart from examining herself,
has also examined two witnesses as P.W.2 - Ganeshappa
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
Jadiyanavar who is the uncle of the Petitioner No.1 and
P.W.3 - Vasappa Hosalli who is the acquaintance/relative
of the parties. The said witnesses have spoken about the
marriage that was solemnised between the Petitioner No.1
and the respondent and nothing has been elicited in the
elaborate cross examination to disbelieve their statement.
That apart, the petitioner No.1 has also produced marriage
invitation card, marriage photographs, birth certificate of
the Petitioner No.2, aadhar card, voter's ID card and
ration card. All the said documents were exhibited as
Ex.P.1 to P.18. The photographs produced at Ex.P.2 to
P.5 and Ex.P.10 to P.18 depict the marriage ceremony
being performed between the Petitioner No.1 and the
Respondent. Birth certificate, aadhar card, voter's ID card
and ration card indicate the name of respondent shown as
the husband of the Petitioner No.1 and father of the
Petitioner No.2. With these material evidence made
available by the petitioners, the Family Court came to the
conclusion that the Petitioner No.1 had indeed establish
she being the wife of the respondent and the Petitioner
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
No.2 is the child of the respondent for the purpose of
consideration of the petitioner filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C.
13. Respondent in his evidence had produced the
certified copy of the judgment passed in S.C.No.1/2019
and copy of the postal receipts, legal notices claims to
have been issued by him demanding damages of
Rs.50,000/-.
14. Perusal of Ex.R.1 reveal that the suit filed by
him has been dismissed by the Court for want of evidence
in justification of his claim that only engagement was
performed between him and the Petitioner No.1 and he
had spent Rs.50,000/- thereon.
15. It is necessary to note that the respondent has
not challenged the order passed by the Family Court till
date. As such the finding of the Family Court on issue
with regard to the marital relationship between Petitioner
No.1 and the respondent has remained unchallenged.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
16. This takes this Court to the consideration of the
claim for enhancement of maintenance amount made by
the petitioners in this petition. Though the petitioners
have claimed that the respondent is owning 4 acres of
land, the respondent has admitted that he owns only 2
acres of land. Respondent claims to be earning his
livelihood by carrying out coolie work. The amount of
maintenance awarded by the Family Court is Rs.2,000/- to
the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- to the Petitioner No.2.
At any standard the said amount appears to be on a
meager side.
17. Considering the average cost of living and
background of the parties, this Court is of the considered
view that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family
Court to the Petitioner No.1 at Rs.2,000/- be enhanced to
Rs.4,000/- per month and maintenance amount of
Rs.1,000/- awarded to the Petitioner No.2 be enhanced to
Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly the same is enhanced.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7275
18. With the above modification in the order passed
by the Family Court, this petition is partly allowed. The
other directions issued by the Family Court in its order to
remained intact.
SD/-
JUDGE
KGK,SMM/CT-ASC
