Karnataka High Court
Smt. Maheswari W/O Ravi Kangralkar vs Shri.Ravi S/O Gopal Kangralkar on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15169
RPFC No. 100038 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100038 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAHESWARI
W/O RAVI KANGRALKAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: C/O: SMT. TARAMATI
WD/O GANESH KAMBLE,
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
H.NO.4841, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 006.
2. KUMAR. KARTIK
S/O RAVI KANGRALKAR,
AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: C/O: SMT. TARAMATI
WD/O GANESH KAMBLE,
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
H.NO.4841, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 006.
Digitally signed (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
by BHARATHI H
M HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
Location: HIGH
BHARATHI COURT OF NEXT FRIEND MOTHER
HM KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
PETITIONER NO.1)
Date: 2024.10.25
11:14:16 +0530 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH.S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. RAVI
S/O GOPAL KANGRALKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
(EXPORT AND IMPORT DEPT.)
R/O: PLOT NO.169, SCHEME NO.40,
5TH STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PRESENTLY WORKING IN
MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15169
RPFC No. 100038 of 2021
OLD C.G.O. BUILDING,
01 MAHUSSI KARVE ROAD,
MUMBAI, PIN CODE-400 020.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVICE IN R/O SOLE RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:
06.11.2020 IN CRL.MISC. NO.258/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.258/2016
dated 06.11.2020 by the Judge Family Court, Belagavi,
petitioner No.1/wife is before this Court.
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the
sake of convenience.
3. The wife had filed Crl.Misc.No.258/2016 seeking
maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- to herself and her
son. It is the case of the wife that the husband is working in the
Navy and because of the harassment of the husband, she had
to leave the matrimonial home and she has narrated several
incidents how she has been harassed by the husband and how
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15169
he has assaulted her from the date of marriage till separation.
It is stated that the husband had abandoned the wife without
any reason and withdrawn from the society of the wife. The
husband is said to have not even cared or bothered for the
wellbeing of the wife and to have continued the violent
behavior. It is the case of the husband that the wife is capable
of earning and in fact she is taking tuitions and earning an
amount of Rs.20,000/- per month and he is not bound to
maintain the wife or the son.
4. The trial Court had dismissed the claim of the wife and
granted an amount of Rs.8000/- per month to the son. While
passing the order, the trial Court had observed that the
husband is working in the Navy and in the order, the trial Court
had discussed about the allegations that are made by the
parties. Even though the matrimonial life was lead only for a
short period, the relationship was not cordial and criminal
proceedings are initiated. When the allegations are not
substantiated, merely filing the complaint, the petition under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act by itself cannot prove the allegations of that he has
neglected her. The proof of allegations in the scope of M.C.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15169
petition is different than the proceedings initiated under Section
125 Cr.P.C which is summary in nature. The trial Court had
observed that the initiation of criminal proceedings naturally
has affected the matrimonial life. While the husband returned
home once in three months, then the allegations in the short
span of marital life are not justified. The nature and the pattern
of allegations in the given facts and circumstances of the case
does not entitle the wife for maintenance and accordingly, the
trial Court had held that the wife is not entitled for
maintenance.
5. The trial Court observed that the husband has done
B.E. Mechanical and he is working on contract basis. He had
also worked in South Africa, Nigeria and Gujarat. He has
admitted to own house property behind the K.L.E. School,
Kuvempu Nagar, Belagavi. Though he has stated not to have
any difficulty to produce the bank passbooks, the same was not
produced before the Court. The wife in the chief-examination
has stated that the salary of the respondent to be an amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- and working in a company at Mumbai, to own
two shops at second Railway Gate, two plots in Kangrali and a
house property. No doubt owning of the house property is an
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15169
admitted fact of the husband. The son being minor, the
husband is bound to provide maintenance to him. The husband
had also stated that he was paying an amount of Rs.5000/-
but has stopped to pay the amount after the proceedings of
dowry was initiated by the wife. Accordingly, the trial Court had
granted an amount of Rs.8000/- from the date of the order and
in respect of the wife, the claim was dismissed. Aggrieved
thereby, the wife is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the trial Court had failed to consider the requirement of
the wife and the scope of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C
and taking into consideration the allegations that are made and
conducting an enquiry which is beyond the scope of Section
125 Cr.P.C had dismissed the petition. He submits that he is
working in the Navy and earning handsome salary and when he
has a responsibility to maintain the wife and the child, though
an amount of Rs.8000/- per month is granted by the Court, he
is not even paying that amount and the trial Court has failed to
consider any of the relevant facts and the order that is passed
by the Court by dismissing the plea of the wife is contrary to
the settled law.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15169
7. Notice to the respondent is held sufficient and no
vakalath is filed on behalf of the respondent.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
perused the entire material on record. When the wife has filed
an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance,
the trial Court need not do such a roving enquiry as it has been
done in the particular case. How the Court has come to the
conclusion that there are no reasonable causes for the wife to
stay away from the husband and why the wife is not entitled to
maintenance, nothing is forthcoming from the order. If at all,
the wife is having any other income or she is able to maintain
herself and she has deserted the husband, all these should
have been relevant considerations for the Court. But in this
case, the trial Court has failed to consider the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the husband is working in the
Navy and he is having the house property. The trial Court has
failed to grant maintenance to the wife which is without any
basis.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the wife is
entitled for maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15169
month. As far as the child is concerned, the trial Court had
granted an amount of Rs.8000/- and in that regard, this Court
finds no reasons to interfere. Accordingly, this Court is passing
the following order:
ORDER
i. The order of the trial Court as far as not
granting maintenance to the wife is set aside
and the wife is entitled for an amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing
of the petition.
ii. The maintenance granted in favour of the son
remains intact.
iii. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed
off.
iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MEG
CT:BCK
