Partly allowed

Sri. Naveen Kumar. R v. Manjula

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021RPFC/140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision petition for setting aside a Family Court's maintenance order was allowed. The High Court found the petitioner had not been properly served and granted him an opportunity to present objections. The maintenance order was quashed and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 01.04.2019 in C.Mis.No.50/2019 was set aside; matter remanded to Family Court for fresh hearing with opportunity to petitioner.

Sri. Naveen Kumar. R Vs Manjula — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

RPFC No.140/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI NAVEEN KUMAR R S/O RANGARAJ S AGED 30 YEARS No.648, HOSABEEDHI HINAKAL VILLAGE MYSORE – 570 017. ..PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI T K NAGESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . MANJULA W/O. NAVEEN KUMAR R, AGED 28 YEARS

¶11

2 . DHANASRI D/O. NAVEEN KUMAR R, AGED 2 YEARS, MINOR, GUARDIAN AND MOTHER MANJULA, STHREE SEVANIKETHANA, SRI. KRISHNADEVARAYA CIRCLE, 2^ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570 017. ..RESPONDENTS (SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED: 05.07.2021)

¶12

¶13

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.No.50/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C, FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶14

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family

¶17

Courts Act against the order dated 01.04.2019 passed in C.Mis.No.50/2019 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Mysuru.

¶18

2. Facts of the case as extracted from the order passed by the Family court is as under:

¶19

“2. The brief facts in nutshell as stated in the Petition are that, on 19.01.2017, the marriage of this 1^st Petitioner was solemnized along with this Respondent at Laxmikanth Temple, Hebbal, Mysuru, as per their Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. After their marriage, on 20.1.2017, their marriage was registered at Sub-Registrar Office, South

¶20

¶21

Mysuru. Subsequently, they have started their marital life at Mysuru. But, after one year from the date of her marriage, the Respondent is having relationship with another women by name Kusuma and started to give both physical and mental harassment. Without tolerating such harassment, the 1^st Petitioner initiated first information before Mahila Police Station on 25.03.2018. Subsequently, nearly about 2 months, he looked after the 1^st Petitioner cordially. But, again, he has started to give both physical and mental harassment. Subsequently, again on 29.05.2018, she lodged a complaint to the Police against this Respondent and the said case is registered in Cr.No.30/2018. When the Respondent came to know that, 1^st Petitioner is pregnant, he has started to give more harassment. When she was 7 months old pregnant, the Respondent and his friend and another lady Kusuma came at late night and his friend attempted to commit rape on her. All those persons abused, assaulted and necked out from her matrimonial home. Then, she sustained injury and got admitted at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. After discharging from the Hospital, nobody were

¶22

¶23

there to look after herself. Then, she obtained shelter at Sthree Sevanikethana Seva Ashram. Subsequently, on 20.10.2018, she gave birth to her female child. Even after birth of her child, the Respondent never came to see the child and welfare of 1^st Petitioner also. He is not paying any single pie towards any expenses of the Petitioners. The Respondent is living with another Woman and he has completely deserted and neglected to maintain the Petitioners. The Respondent is having autorikshaw and also own house. He is having total income of Rs.50,000/- p.m. The 1^st Petitioner is not having source of income. She is living at Sthree Sevanikethana without any alternative. Accordingly, she is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards their maintenance.”

¶24

Respondent before the Family court even inspite of service of notice did not appear and was placed exparte.

¶25

4. Learned Judge, Family court was accommodated with the oral and documentary evidence as under:

¶26

¶27

PW-1-Manjula

¶28

Ex.P-1 –Invitation Ex.P-2-4 photographs Ex.P-3-Marriage registration certificate Ex.P-4-FIR Ex.P-5- Copy of complaint Ex.P-6-Endorsement Ex.P-7-Aadhar Card copy

¶29

Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that the trial court has passed an order of maintenance and granted Rs.8,000/- to revision respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/to revision respondent No.2 till her marriage totally Rs.12,000/p.m. from the date of petition. In paragraph 3 of the certified copy of the order it is stated that respondent did not appear before the Family court and was placed exparte. Learned counsel submits an opportunity may be granted to revision petitioner to present his case.

¶30

Revision respondent No.1 is the wife and revision respondent No.2 is the daughter. Marital relationship

¶31

¶32

is admitted so also parental relationship. The revision respondent-wife has stated regarding lodging of criminal case in Crime No.30/2018. She also states she was ill treated and tortured by the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner has willfully with a malafide intention has neglected to maintain his wife and child. Revision respondents claimed maintenance of Rs.25,000/- however Family court has ordered at Rs.8,000/- to revision respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/to revision respondent No.2 till her marriage.

¶33

In the light of opportunity not being granted to the petitioner I find that it is necessary to consider the position and fact of law. On the previous date of hearing notice issued to respondent has been returned with postal endorsement as `unclaimed’. However revision petitioner has not taken further steps nor paid process fees. In the light of endorsement I find no

¶34

¶35

prejudice would be caused if the service of notice is taken as held sufficient as the notice sent was not claimed by the revision respondents. In this connection an opportunity may be granted to revision petitioner to present his case by filing objections on the very next date of hearing and in this connection order of Family court is liable to be set aside with a direction to dispose of the case within three months from the first date of hearing.

¶36

Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Petition is allowed and order dated 01.04.2019 passed in C.Mis.No.50/2019 is set aside. Matter is remanded to Family Court, Mysuru, with a direction to give opportunity to the revision petitioner herein to present his case and Family court shall dispose of the

¶39

¶40

case within three months from the first date of hearing.

¶41

However revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to revision respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/to revision respondent No.2 by way of interim maintenance and also settle arrears of maintenance if any within 30 days from today.

¶42

Family court shall also send notice to revision respondent regarding date of appearance.

¶43

Send a copy of this order to the Family court, Mysuru.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

SBN

Sri. Naveen Kumar. R v. Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Naveen Kumar. R v. Manjula

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. Bettaswamygowda Vs Sri. Ramaiah

Sri G Prabhukumar Vs Smt. Bhagya B

Nazeer Ahamed Vs Smt Zubedha Bi

Raju B Vs Nilesh O Jain

G Krishnappa Vs R Narayanaswamy

Smt Chandrakala Vs Sri Lokesh