Karnataka High Court
Shri Kareppa B Chunchanur vs Smt Demavva Alias Kavya K. Chunchanur on 31 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1980
RPFC No. 100010 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100010 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHRI KAREPPA B. CHUNCHANUR
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. CONSTABLE (BSF),
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-581204
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O. THE COMMANDING OFFICER,
13 BATTALION, BSF BARMER (RAJASTHAN)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. DEMAVVA @ KAVYA K. CHUNCHANUR,
W/O. KAREPPA B. CHUNCHANUR,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. TEGUR, PO. TIGADOLLI,
TQ. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591115.
...RESPONDENT
VN
BADIGER THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
Digitally signed ORDER IN CRL.MISC.NO.148/2020 DATED 08.11.2024 BY THE
by V N
BADIGER
Location: High
Court of
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, AND CONSEQUENTLY
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
Date:
2025.02.06
DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT WIFE U/SEC.125 OF
16:13:54 +0530
CR.P.C. BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1980
RPFC No. 100010 of 2025
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
1. This revision petition is filed by the respondent
- husband challenging the order dated 08.11.2024 in
Crl.Misc.No.148/2020 on the file of the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dharwad1 awarding maintenance to the
respondent herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner before the Family
Court that the marriage between the petitioner and
respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2018 at
Shinganahalli village and in their wedlock no children were
born. It is further stated in the petition that the
respondent - husband was working as a constable in
Border Security Force and petitioner at the time of
marriage was working as guest lecturer in ITI College. The
Hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1980
petitioner has stated in the petition that the respondent
has not taken care of the needs of the petitioner as a
dutiful wife and also made certain allegation against the
respondent - husband not only for seeking dowry but also
insofar as family disputes are concerned and accordingly,
the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.148/2020 seeking
maintenance.
4. After service of notice, the respondent -
husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement
of objection admitting the relationship as husband and
wife and their marriage was solemnized on 27.04.2018,
however, denied the allegation made with regard to the
claim for dowry as well as the relationship of respondent -
husband with other woman and accordingly sought for
dismissal of the petition.
5. The Family Court after considering the material
on record, by its order dated 08.11.2024, allowed the
petition in part by directing the respondent - husband to
pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1980
- wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent -
husband has preferred this revision petition.
6. I have heard Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and perused the records.
7. Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that the respondent herein was
working as guest lecturer in ITI College and the said
aspect has not been considered by the Family Court while
awarding maintenance to the respondent herein. It is also
his submission that the petitioner herein has filed
M.C.No.87/2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and
the said petition came to be allowed, however, the
respondent herein willfully not joining the matrimonial
home and accordingly, sought for interference of this
Court.
8. Having taken note of the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not in
dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1980
respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2018 at
Shinganahalli village and thereafter the parties are
residing in the matrimonial home, however, the
respondent herein has made certain allegation against the
petitioner herein that the petitioner herein was not in
cordial relationship with the respondent herein and
accordingly she left the matrimonial home. Taking into
consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court
that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner
herein by the respondent on 12.07.2020 in Women Police
Station and thereafter the matter was compromised,
however, the same was given effect to continue the
conjugal relationship. In that view of the matter, as the
parties are residing separately, the respondent herein is
entitled for maintenance.
9. Insofar as quantification of maintenance is
concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the respondent herein is working as
lecturer in ITI college, however, taking into account the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1980
finding recorded by the Family Court at para No.18 that as
the petitioner herein is working in BSF and as per the
documents produced Exs.C.1 and C.2, which makes it
clear that the salary of the petitioner is Rs.41,700/- per
month and taking into consideration the fact that the
respondent herein is residing separately at Tigadolli
village, Kittur Taluk, Belagavi District and is not working as
argued by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, I am of the view that grant of maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- by the Family Court is just and proper which
does not require interference by this Court in the
revisional jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
