Allowed

Sri a v. Manjunath v Sri a C Vishwanathaiah

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2021RPFC/133/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed a revision petition against a Family Court order granting maintenance to a senior citizen son. The court quashed the maintenance award, finding the lower judge failed to consider the family's history, prior partition suit, and the obligation to pay maintenance to the father's wife.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.05.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.45/2014 set aside; revision petition allowed.

Sri a v Manjunath Vs Sri a C Vishwanathaiah — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶5

RPFC No.133/2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI A V MANJUNATH S/O A G VISHWANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT JEVVANADI APARTMENT DOOR NO.304, C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE-560 093.

¶8

A V HARISH S/O A G VISHWANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ATTENDER N.D.R.K.COLLEGE KARIGOWDA COLONY HASSAN-573 201.

¶9

SMT. A V ANUSUYA W/O A G VISHWANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, C/O SRI A V MANJUNATH JEVVANADI APARTMENT DOOR NO.304, C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE-560 093.

¶10

..PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI B VACHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI A G VISHWANATHAIAH S/O GURUVASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, ADAGOORU VILLAGE, MADIHALLI HOBLI BELURU TALUK-573 115.

¶15

..RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI V R PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2018 PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.45/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶18

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Though the matter is listed for admission with

¶21

the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

Revision Petition is directed against the order

¶23

dated 10.05.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.45/2014 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan, wherein maintenance of Rs.6,000/- was ordered to

¶24

¶25

the revision respondent Sri.A.G.Viswanathaiah and

¶26

same is ordered to be paid as under:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petition in Crl.Misc.No.45/2014 dated 16.03.2014 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

¶29

It is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/P.M. from the date of petition/16.03.2014, till April-2018 and petitioner is entitled for maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- from May-2018 till life time of the petitioner.

¶30

It is hereby ordered that the respondent No.1 is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- P.M. to the petitioner from the date of petition/16.03.2014, till April-2018 and respondent No.1 is liable to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- P.M. to

¶31

¶32

the petitioner from May-2018 till life time of the petitioner.

¶33

It is hereby ordered that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- P.M. to the petitioner from the date of petition/16.03.2014, till April-2018 and respondent No.2 is liable to pay maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- P.M. to the petitioner from May-2018 till life time of the petitioner.

¶34

It is hereby ordered that the respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the arrears of maintenance within one month from the date of this order.

¶35

It is hereby ordered that the respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- P.M. to the petitioner on or before 5^th day of each English calendar month.

¶36

¶37

It is hereby ordered that the respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- each, (out of costs of Rs.2,000/-) to the petitioner.

¶38

The petition against respondent No.3 stands disposed off.

¶39

The petition against respondent No.4 stands disposed off.

¶40

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping,

¶41

parties are addressed in accordance with their blood relationship.

¶42

Claimant father Sri.A.G.Vishwanathaiah is the petitioner before the Family court and respondents before the Family court are Sri.A.V.Manjunath, S/o Sri.A.B.Viswanathaiah, Sri.A.V.Harish, S/o Sri.A.B.Viswanathaiah, Sri.Snajaiah M., S/o

¶43

¶44

Sri.A.G.Viswanathaiah and Smt.A.V.Anusuya, W/o Sri.A.G.Viswanathaiah.

¶45

Petition was filed for grant of maintenance by the father against his three children and claimed that he is aged 75 years suffering with age related sickness unable to maintain himself and that the respondents 1 to 3 are getting affluent income and they have surplus resource but willfully failed in their duty to maintain the petitioner therein. It is stated that all the sons are living under affluent circumstances and they have developed vengeance against the petitioner therein and for various reasons stated the learned Judge, Family court ordered respondents 1 and 2 therein to pay maintenance as stated above.

¶46

The respondents before the Family court placed their appearance and contended that the petitioner therein filed the maintenance petition with a

¶47

¶48

deliberate intention to harass the children. Basically the petitioner therein (head of the family and control of the family properties) even deprived their legal and legitimate share under which circumstances a suit for partition of joint Hindu Family properties was filed by three children and the daughter. Said suit in O.S.No.26/2008 came to be decreed on 17.03.2010 wherein sons and daughter were granted 4/5^th share in the schedule properties remaining 1/5^th automatically went to the share of the father-revision respondent. It is submitted a maintenance petition was also filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the revision petitioner No.4 therein who is none other than the wife of revision respondent. The respondents before the Family court are the revision petitioners. However petitioners No.1 and 2 under this revision are respondents 1 and 2 before the Family court and petitioner No.3 –Smt.Anusuya is respondent No.4

¶49

¶50

before the Family court. It is stated that petitioner No.3 before the Family court Mr.Snajaiah M., was not available and he is stated to be residing in USA and it is stated that respondent No.2 is not mentally fit and feeling well.

¶51

As could be seen from the substance of the case it is blaming between themselves who are none other than family members. Father is on one side and sons and wife on the other. A petition is also stated to have been filed by revision petitioner No.3 in Crl.Misc.190/2008 wherein Family court ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month payable by her husband who is none other than revision respondent herein. It is the contention of learned counsel for revision petitioner being obligatory to pay maintenance to his wife the respondent has filed C.Misc.No.45/2014 as a counter blast to circumvent the order of maintenance petition.

¶52

¶53

Learned counsel for revision petitioners

¶54

B.Vachan submits that the order of maintenance granted against the revision respondent was confirmed by the revision court and also by this court in W.P.No.48067/2014. The said order was previously confirmed by revision court in revision petition No.23/2013. The properties wherein partition was ordered against the revision respondent was not challenged by virtue of the reason entire family agreed that the revision respondent would be entitled to receive the income from the properties.

¶55

Learned counsel for revision respondent-father submits that revision respondent is aged 75 years and not getting any income and there is collusion among the revision petitioners who are having sufficient income.

¶56

¶57

In the whole circumstances of the case properties against which partition was ordered was agricultural land measuring 12 items of properties consisting of agricultural land at Adagur Village, Hassan and some of the items are stated to be irrigated.

¶58

In the whole circumstances of the case it appears there is ego between the parties for consideration rather than actual. The partition suit though was decreed is not stated to have been executed to effect it by metes and bounds nor a final decree is passed. It goes to show the revision respondent has more a personal agenda than seeking maintenance for himself. It is necessary to mention when previously learned Family court in Crl.Misc.No.190/2008 ordered maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and that was confirmed at Rs.3,000/- by

¶59

¶60

revision court in Crl.R.P.No.23/2013 the established factor is that he has means to maintain his wife.

¶61

In the above set of circumstances as stated already maintenance order was against the revision respondent and which is already confirmed even by this court. In the circumstances I find the right of maintenance is legal and moral responsibility but there cannot be abuse or miseries, moral or legal right by the whole. No doubt aged and infirm father is entitled to be maintained by his children who are living under affluent circumstances but the previous transaction and events in the case are also to be considered. In the given circumstances learned Judge failed to examine all the aspects of maintenance right in enabling circumstances. In the context and circumstances of the case I find that there is no establishing of right of maintenance by the revision respondent against revision petitioners 1 to 3.

¶62

¶63

Another submission of counsel for revision petitioners 1 and 2 is that another son of the respondent was young and abandoned by revision respondent. I find that the claim of the revision respondent that he is not having any means to maintain is not believed by this court.

¶64

In the circumstances of the case revision petitioner No.3 is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit.

¶65

In the result, petition is allowed. Order dated 10.05.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.45/2014 is set aside.

¶66

No order as to costs.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

SBN

Sri a v. Manjunath v Sri a C Vishwanathaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a v. Manjunath v Sri a C Vishwanathaiah

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

Sri Honne Gowda S/O Dodda Puttegowda Vs Smt Chikkakempamma W/O Sri Kengegowda

Sri Manju Vs Smt Puttasrithi @ Srithi

Mr. Sanal Vs Mrs. Geoviya

Sri Shyam Singh Vs Smt. Shakunthala Bai

R Narayana Swamy Vs Sidda Naik @ Siddappa

Mr C T Ponnappa Vs Mrs Veena