Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramu S/O Akaram Wallepurkar vs Smt Niramala W/O Ramu Wallepurkar on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
RPFC No. 100119 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100009 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100119 OF 2024 C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100009 OF 2024
IN R.P.F.C. NO. 100119 OF 2024 :
BETWEEN:
NIRMALA,
W/O RAMU WALLEPURKAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: C/O: SHRI. MARUTI RAMA ASHTEKAR,
HOUSE NO.261, DURGADEVAI GALLI,
KONDASKOP, TALUKA AND
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH.S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMU
BHARATHI
HM S/O AKARAM WALLEPURKAR,
Digitally signed by
AGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: MASON AND
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
TRACTOR DRIVER,R/O: H.NO.742,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH TEGGIN GALLI, WARD NO.12,
VADAGAON, BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-590 003.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH BIRANAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED U/SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
11.08.2023 CRIMINAL MISC. NO.257/2018 BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BELAGAVI KINDLY SET
ASIDE BY ALLOWING REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
RPFC No. 100119 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100009 of 2024
IN R.P.F.C.NO.100009 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMU
S/O AKARAM WALLEPURKAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MASON,
R/AT: H.NO.742, TEGGIN GALLI,
WARD NO.12, VADAGOAN,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH BIRANAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NIRAMALA
W/O RAMU WALLEPURKAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. KUMAR. PRADIP
S/O RAMU WALLEPURKAR,
AGE: 12 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. KUMARI. PRIYA
D/O RAMU WALLEPURKAR,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
C/O SRI. MARUTHI RAMA ASHTEKAR,
ALL ARE R/AT: H.NO.261,
DURGADEVI GALLI, KONDASKOP,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.
NOTE: SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3
ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT
NO.1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH.S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS R/BY R1)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
RPFC No. 100119 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100009 of 2024
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 11.08.2023, IN CRL.MISC. NO.257/2018, ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc. No.257/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Belagavi, both the husband and the wife are before this Court.
The wife's petition is RPFC No.100119/2024 and the husband's
petition is RPFC No.100009/2024.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties would be
referred to as per their rank in Crl. Misc. No.257/2018.
3. The petitioner No.1/wife had filed Crl. Misc.
No.257/2018 seeking maintenance for herself and her two
children (petitioners No.2 & 3). It is the case of the
petitioner/wife that the marriage with the respondent/husband
had taken place on 25.11.2009 and out of the wedlock, they
are blessed with two children. On 20.03.2017, at the instigation
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
of the parents of respondent, the husband necked out the
petitioner/wife out of the matrimonial home and since then, she
is residing in her parental home along with her two children.
She is not able to bear the school fees and other expenses of
the children. The parents of the petitioner/wife and other
elderly persons advised the husband to take her back but he
refused the same. According to the petitioner/wife, the
respondent/husband is financially sound and he is leading
luxurious life. The husband is having income of Rs.50,000/- per
month and it is the duty of the husband to maintain her and
the children.
4. The respondent/husband filed statement of
objections. In the objections statement, he has stated that in
the married life of nine years, the petitioner/wife resided with
him hardly for four years and at the instigation of her parents,
she used to go to her parental home without informing the
same to him and his parents. The respondent/husband made
his efforts to mend her ways, and in the month of April, 2017
the petitioner/wife left his company and went to her parental
home ignoring the education of her children and since then, she
is residing in her parental home. All efforts made by him to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
bring his wife went in vain. Thereafter he filed M.C.
No.251/2018 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
5. The Family Court had considered the respective
stands of both the parties and dismissed the application insofar
as the petitioner/wife is concerned. While dismissing the
application, the Family Court has observed that in M.C.
No.251/2018 the Court had given a categorical finding that the
wife had left the matrimonial home on her own and that she
has withdrawn from the society without any reasonable cause
and Section 125(4) of Criminal Procedure Code also disentitles
a wife from receiving maintenance from her husband when she
refuses to live with him without a reasonable cause. The Family
Court has observed that the evidence in both the matters i.e.,
in matrimonial case as well in the criminal miscellaneous case is
recorded almost simultaneously and both the matters are
disposed of simultaneously though by separate orders. The
evidence adduced by the petitioner/wife with regard to neglect
or refusal on the part of the respondent was not sufficient and
the evidence of P.W.2 was also of no help to the case of the
petitioner/wife in that regard. Hence, the Family Court came to
the conclusion that there were no reasons to grant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
maintenance to the wife. As far as granting of maintenance to
the children is concerned, the Family Court has observed that
there is evidence to show that husband is earning an amount of
Rs.50,000/- per month. Considering the age of the children and
their requirement, the Family Court had directed the
respondent to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to each
of the children i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before the Family
Court.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Family Court
dismissing her application, the petitioner/wife is before this
Court, and the respondent/husband is before this Court
questioning the maintenance that is granted to the petitioners
No.2 & 3 i.e., to the children.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that
the respondent/husband has an obligation to maintain the
petitioner. When the respondent/husband has failed to take
care of the petitioner and the petitioner is not having sufficient
means to maintain herself, the Family Court ought to have
granted maintenance to the petitioner/wife. The reasons that
are given while dismissing the application are contrary to the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
settled law. The Family Court has failed to consider the fate of
a woman, and has considered and focused more on the order
passed in the matrimonial case filed by the
respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights without
independently appreciating the matter before it. It is submitted
that the petitioner/wife is entitled for maintenance.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/husband submits that the matrimonial case filed by
respondent for restitution of conjugal rights has been decreed
and the petitioner/wife has failed to join the husband. In the
light of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner/wife, who is
staying away from the matrimonial home without reasonable
cause, is not entitled for any maintenance. The Family Court
has rightly dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition
against the petitioner/wife. He submits that when there is no
material on record to show what is the income of the husband,
granting of monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.6,000/-
for two children is on the higher side and the same is liable to
be set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
9. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record.
10. The respondent/husband had filed matrimonial case
for restitution of conjugal rights which came to be allowed. As
observed by the Family Court, both the petitions i.e., petition
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and the matrimonial case for
restitution of conjugal rights, were simultaneously heard,
evidence was led simultaneously. However, two independent
orders were passed. The evidence before the Court shows that
without any reasonable cause the petitioner/wife is staying
away from the matrimonial home. It is on that count, the
Family Court has rightly held that the petitioner/wife is not
entitled for maintenance amount. It is an admitted fact that
even after an order is passed allowing matrimonial case seeking
restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner/wife had not joined
the husband.
11. Coming to the amount granted to the children i.e.,
petitioners No.2 & 3 before the Family Court, towards
maintenance, it is the case of the respondent that he has no
means. As the respondent/husband had appeared before the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16151
Family Court, he should have adduced the evidence that he is
not having sufficient income. When the respondent/husband
was taking care of two children and when he was taking care of
educational and other expenses of the children, now, stating
that granting of an amount of Rs.6,000/- is on the higher side
is without any basis. This Court is not able to appreciate the
said contention of the counsel for the respondent/husband. In
that view of the matter, this Court do not find any merit both in
the petition filed by the husband as well as in the petition filed
by the wife. Accordingly, the Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i) Both the petitions i.e. RPFC No.100119/2024 and
RPFC No.100009/2024 are dismissed.
ii) All pending I.As., in these petitions shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
KMS
CT:BCK
