Karnataka High Court
Shrikant S/O Kanakappa Kurabageri vs Smt. Renuka Alias Shashikala W/O ... on 13 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
RPFC No. 100094 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100094 OF 2024 (-)
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100019 OF 2024
IN RPFC NO.100094/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT RENUKA @ SHASHIKALA
W/O. SHRIKANT KURUBAGERI
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
2. KANAKARAJ S/O. SHRIKANT KURUBAGERI
AGE. 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
BOTH R/O. AT. CHIKKAHANDIGOL,
DIST. GADAG-582205.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. SHRIKANT
MANJANNA
E S/O. KANAKAPPA KURUBAGERI,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BSF CONSTABLE,
R/AT. 150 BN BSF, FATIKCHARA (TULA BAGAN),
Digitally signed VILL-MOHANPUR,
by MANJANNA
E POST: U.D.NAGAR, CITY AGARTALA,
Date: DIST. WEST TRIPURA,
2025.01.24
13:08:40 STATE TRIPURA-799211.
+0530 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE
MAINTENANCE AS AWARDED THROUGH THE ORDER DATED
16.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE Ist ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT GADAG IN CRL.MISC.NO.196/2022 BY
ALLOWING THE PETITION AS FILED U/S 125 OF CR.P.C. IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
RPFC No. 100094 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024
IN RPFC NO.100019/2024
BETWEEN:
SHRIKANT S/O. KANAKAPPA KURABAGERI,
AGE. 47 YEARS,
OCC. BSF CONSTABLE
R/O.150 BN BSF, FATIKCHRA (TULA BAGAN)
VILLAGE: MOHANPUR,
POST. U.D.NAGAR,
CITY. AGARTALA
DISTRICT. WEST TRIPURA,
STATE TRIPURA-799211.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKA ALIAS SHASHIKALA
W/O. SHRIKANT KURUBAGERI,
AGE. 43 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
2. KANAKARAJ S/O. SHRIKANT KURUBAGERI,
AGE. 17 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT,
SINCDE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN (MOTHER)
RESPONDENT NO.1
R/O. CHIKKAHANDIGOL VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST GADAG - 582205.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
--------
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL. MISC.
NO.196/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, GADAG AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.12.2023
PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL, PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
GADAG IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.196/2022 IN THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
RPFC No. 100094 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In these petitions, the challenge has been made
to order dated 16.12.2023 in Clr.Misc.No.196 of 2022
on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gadag allowing the petition in part.
2. The petitioners in RPFC No.100094 of 2024 are
the petitioners before the Family Court and petitioner
in RPFC No.100019 of 2024 is the respondent before
the Family Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
petition shall be referred to in terms of their status
and ranking before the Family Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage
of petition No.1 with the respondent was solemnized
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
on 01.05.2005 at Chikkahandigol Village and in their
wedlock, the petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of
the petitioners that, the respondent-husband was ill-
treating the petitioner No.1 and has filed M.C No.183
of 2018 seeking dissolution of marriage, and it is also
stated that, the petitioners have filed Crl.Mis.No.5 of
2022, seeking setting aside the ex-parte decree
passed in M.C No.183 of 2018. It is also stated that
respondent-husband is serving in Border Security
Force (for short, BSF) and getting monthly salary of
Rs.80,000/- per month and apart from the salary
income, he is owning agricultural lands at
Chikkahandigol village and accordingly, the petitioners
stated that, the petitioners are residing separately
from the respondent-husband and as such, sought for
maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.196 of 2020.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
5. On service of notice the respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed objections denying the
averments made in the petition.
6. The respondent admits the decree of divorce
passed in M.C.No.183 of 2018. It is the specific
contention of the respondent that the petitioners
without any cause left the matrimonial home and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. In order to establish their case, the petitioner
No.1 was examined herself as PW1 and produced 08
documents as Ex.P1 to P8 and respondent was
examined RW1 and produced 09 documents as Ex.R1
to R9. The Family Court, after considering the material
on record by order dated 16.12.2023, allowed the
petition in part and directed the respondent-husband
to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to
petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.2.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
husband has filed RPFC No.100019 of 2024 and
petitioners have filed RPFC No.100094 of 2024
seeking enhancement of maintenance.
8. Sri Gouri Shankar Mot learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in RPFC No.100094 of 2024 argued
that the salary of the respondent-husband was
Rs.85,000/- per month and same is reflected in Exs.P7
and P8 and accordingly, submitted that the
respondent-husband is also owning agricultural lands
in village and therefore, submitted that the grant of
maintenance by the Family Court requires
enhancement in this petition.
9. Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-husband, referred to the salary slip
produced at Ex.R2 and argued that, the salary of the
respondent husband was Rs.36,000/- per month and
accordingly, she submitted that, as the salary of the
respondent is meager and award of maintenance is on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
the higher side. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent that, the
respondent had taken retirement from his
employment. Accordingly, sought for setting aside the
order dated 16.12.2023 passed by Family Court.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, it is not in dispute that marriage between
the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on
01.05.2005 and in their wedlock the petitioner No.2
was born. As on the date of filing to the petition, the
petitioner No.2 was aged about 16 years and
represented by natural guardian-Petitioner No.1.
Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court
would indicate that, the respondent-husband has filed
M.C No.183 of 2008 which came to be decreed ex-
parte and feeling aggrieved by the, the petitioner No.1
(wife) has filed C.Misc.No.5 of 2022, seeking setting
aside the ex-parte order passed in M.C No.183 of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
2018 which is pending consideration before the
competent Court. It is also to be noted that the
respondent-husband was working at BSF and perusal
of the Exs.P7 and P8 which has been admitted by the
respondent indicate that, the net salary of the
respondent was Rs.85,000/- per month. Though the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent
vehemently contended by referring to the salary slip
produced at Ex.R2 however, the same cannot be
accepted by taking into consideration the finding
recorded by the Family Court at paragraph 15 of the
impugned order. In that view of the matter, as the
respondent-husband also owns agricultural lands, I
find force in the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners - wife and child,
seeking enhancement of maintenance as the
petitioners herein are residing separately from the
respondent. Taking into consideration the prevailing
NC: 2025:KHC-D:495
sustenance of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is
entitled for enhanced maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per
month and petitioner No.2 is entitle for enhanced
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, till he attains
majority. Accordingly, the RPFC No.100094 of 2024 is
allowed in part and RPFC No.100019 of 2024 is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
