Allowed

Shivraj S/O Sadashiv Halingali v. Smt.Nirmala W/O Shivraj Halingali

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2018RPFC/100087/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner-husband's appeal against an interim maintenance order. The Family Court had passed the order ex-parte without hearing the absent petitioner, who claimed hospitalization due to illness and inability to contact counsel. The High Court set aside the order, remanding the case for a proper hearing, but directed the petitioner to continue paying the interim maintena

What did the court decide?

The order of the Family Court dated 10.03.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded to give an opportunity to both parties. The petitioner is directed to pay the interim maintenance till the matter

Shivraj S/O Sadashiv Halingali Vs Smt.Nirmala W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶5

RPFC No.100087/2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHIVRAJ S/O SADASHIV HALINGALI, AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:NOW COOLIE, R/O. NEAR ASHOK COLONY, BANHATTI, TQ:JAMKHANDI DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKHAR S NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT.NIRMALA W/O SHIVRAJ HALINGALI, AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O C/O. BABU SIDDAPPA JARALI, H.NO. 759, VAIKUNT ROAD, SAGAR NAGAR, KANGRALI,

¶12

K.H. TQ & DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶13

KUMARI. PURVI, D/O SHIVRAJ HALINGALI, AGE:3 YEARS, OCC:NIL (SINCE REPSONDENT NO.2 BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1).

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.DEEPAK S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 MINOR REP. BY R1)

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.03.2017 IN CRL.MISC NO.610/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Belagavi in Crl. Misc. Petition No.610/2016 dated 10.03.2017.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. They got married on

¶23

¶24

23.05.2013 and thereafter the petitioner-husband

¶25

slowly started to harass the petitioner for demand of dowry and the respondent-wife under the hope that it may go right and she also got advised the petitioner – husband with her parents and elders. Thereafter, petitioner sent the respondent to her parent’s house for delivery. Respondent gave birth to female child he has neglected to maintain both mother and child and as such she filed a Crl. petition under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. claiming the maintenance. When notice was served to the respondent, he remained absent. Without hearing the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner, interim order came to be passed, where under a sum of Rs.3,000/per month has been awarded as maintenance to first respondent-wife. An amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2-daughter and a direction was also issued for a sum of Rs.1,000/towards litigation expenses.

¶26

¶27

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner husband was taking treatment in the hospital because of ill-health, he was unable to contact his counsel and appear before the Court below. Without giving any sufficient opportunity, this impugned order has been passed. He further submitted that the petitioner husband is working as a coolie and if the said order is continued, it will cause greater hardship to petitioner-husband. Further, he submitted that in order to have a fair trial an opportunity should be given to him. He further submitted that he is ready to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Court below till the matter is heard and decided on merits. On these grounds petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner-husband did not appeared before the Family Court and therefore, the Family Court has passed the reasonable order by granting the

¶29

¶30

maintenance. There are no grounds to set aside the said order. On these grounds the respondent-wife prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶31

I have carefully gone through the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

By going through the submission, it is specific

¶33

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner-Husband because of his ill-health as he was suffering from Jaundice and taking treatment in the hospital and as such he was unable to contact his Advocate then he finds it difficult to appear before the Family Court. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court the respondent has been placed Ex-parte and no opportunity has been given to file his objection on his behalf and thereafter, the Family Court passed an order awarding compensation of Rs.Rs.3,000/- per

¶34

¶35

month to the respondent No.1-wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2-daughter and a direction was also issued to pay the litigant expenses of Rs.1,000/-. Further more, the petitioner is ready to pay the compensation as ordered by the Court below till the matter is heard and decided on merits.

¶36

In the light of the above, the petitioner has made out a case and as such the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Family Court, Belagavi in Crl.Misc.No.610/2016, dated 10.03.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court, Belagavi to dispose off the case in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to both the parties.

¶37

It is directed to the petitioner-husband that he has to go on paying the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.1-wife and Rs.1,000/- to the respondent No.2-daughter as ordered by the Family Court till the matter is heard and decided on merits. If, he fails to

¶38

¶39

pay the compensation, under that circumstance, the Family Court is directed to stickup to the earlier order and recover the same by filing execution.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

HMB/VB

Shivraj S/O Sadashiv Halingali v. Smt.Nirmala W/O Shivraj Halingali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj S/O Sadashiv Halingali v. Smt.Nirmala W/O Shivraj Halingali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Asha W/O Prasanna Hosmath, Vs Sri..Prasanna

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shobha W/O Jayandhar Chogle

Smt. Padmaja @ Sona Vs Pramod @ Baburao S/O. Laxmanrao Savanur

Smt.Priyadarshini Vs Pramod

Gurappa Nandeppa Malagundi Vs the Cheif Election Commissioner

Sri. Jayant S/O. Fakkirappa Gulenavar, Vs Sri. Shankerappa S/O. Peerappa Gulenavar