The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court's maintenance order. The court held the awarded amount was not excessive given the wife's low income and circumstances, finding the appeal devoid of merit.
Revision petition and interim stay application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.P.F.C.No.130/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
R.P.F.C.No.130/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI H N SRINIVAS S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 41 YEARS R/AT HANUMANTHEGOWDANAPALYA YANTAGANAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R RAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SINCE 2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.B-50, 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHNAGAR BANGALORE-21
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MUNIYAPPA FOR SRI B G THAMMAIAH, ADVOCATES FOR R-1)
R.P.F.C.No.130/2011
RPFC FILED U/SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:26.09.2011 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.645/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. JUDGE, VI-ADDL. FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
This revision petition by the husband is directed
against the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the VI Additional Family Court, Bangalore in
C.Misc.No.645/2008.
the petitioner and respondent no.1. The relationship is not in dispute. As could be seen from the impugned order, respondent no.1-wife is working as a maid servant and earning Rs.700/- per month. It
cannot be said that respondent no.1 can maintain herself and her minor daughter aged 15 years with that meagre income. The Family Court, on a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has awarded a maintenance of Rs.5,000/per month to both the wife and the minor daughter. This cannot be said to be excessive on the facts of the case to warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the revision petition, I.A.No.1/2012 filed for interim stay also stands dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
hkh.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's award of maintenance is excessive to warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction.
Whether the husband has sufficient grounds to challenge the maintenance order passed against him.
Whether the interim stay application relates to the dismissed revision petition should also be dismissed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri H N Srinivas
Smt. Sowbhagya
Baby S Pallavi
H.G. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
