RPFC challenging maintenance enhancement order. Court found the awarded amount was nominal by current standards and rejected the petition.
Petition for review and applications for stay and condonation of delay were rejected.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
R.P.(F.C) NO.524 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Shivappa S/o Bhimappa Agasar Age: 50 years, Occ: Laundri and Agriculture, R/o Satti (Santi), Taluk: Athani District: Bijapur-586101.
… Petitioner
(Shri Shivanand Patil, Advocate)
AND:
Since minor, represented by
2
his natural guardian and mother respondent No.1.
… Respondents
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, praying to call for and examine the records in Criminal Misc.No.641/2011 of the Judge Family Court at Bijapur and set aside/modify the judgment dated 02.06.2012, wherein the petition filed under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was allowed partly.
This RFPC coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
condonation of delay in filing the petition and for stay of further proceedings. However, on merits the petitioner is said to be the husband, who was to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.150/per month in the petition filed in the year 1988 and therefore the same has been continued to be paid. It is now, that the
3
respondent has sought for enhancement and the Court below having granted nominal amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance, is sought to be questioned herein. By any standards, Rs.3,000/- as on today, given the cost of living, is a nominal amount and therefore, there is no warrant for interference by this Court. The applications do not merit consideration. The petition itself does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the applications as well as the petition are rejected.
Sd/������
swk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the order granting nominal maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivappa S/o Bhimappa Agasar
Shantabai W/o Shivappa Agasar
Chandrashekhar S/o Shivappa Agasar
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
