Allowed

Sri Prakash v. Smt Dakshayani

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021RPFC/155/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition filed under S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the High Court set aside a Family Court order enhancing maintenance. Finding a violation of natural justice due to lack of cross-examination opportunity, the Court remanded the matter and ordered interim maintenance.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, the matter remanded to the Family Court for fresh hearing after opportunity, and interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month directed.

Sri Prakash Vs Smt Dakshayani — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

R.P.F.C. No.155 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri Prakash, S/o.Mahalingappa, Aged about 53 years, R/at Bommenahalli Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 103.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri B.Roopesha, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Smt.Dakshayani, W/o.Prakash, D/o. K.N. Shivananjappa, R/at Kolur Village, Chunchanakatte Hobli, K.R.Nagar Taluk, Mysuru – 571 617.

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

(By Sri D.K.Lokesh, Advocate for Sri P.Nataraju, Advocate)

¶15

This RPFC is filed U/S 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 20.09.2018 passed in C.Misc.No.12/2018 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, partly allowing the petition

¶16

¶17

filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance.

¶18

This RPFC coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Though the matter is listed today for Admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

¶21

The present petition is filed by the revision petitioner-husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 praying to set aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the 1^st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru in Crl.Misc. No.12/2018 filed by the revision respondent-wife seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month by modifying the order dated 05.03.2012 passed in Cr.Misc. No.204/2009.

¶22

¶23

3. The revision petitioner is the husband. He

¶24

has challenged the enhancement of the maintenance.

¶25

In order to avoid over lapping and

¶26

confusions, the parties are addressed in accordance with their status wise relationship.

¶27

5. In order to avoid wastage of judicial time,

¶28

the substance of the case is extracted from paras 3, 4 and 5 of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 which are as under:

¶29

“The brief facts of the case is that, she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent taken place about 27 years back as per customs prevailing in their community. It is stated that she has filed C.Misc.No.204/2009 against the respondent claiming maintenance and said petition was allowed on 05.03.2012 awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per

¶30

¶31

month. Thereafter, the respondent preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court in RPFC No.70/2012 the said appeal was ended with dismiss. It is also stated that the respondent is working as mansion by profession and he is also having agricultural property and thereby earning Rs.5 lakhs per annum. Apart from that he has got his own house. Now a days the price of essential commodities are going hike and even the rent of the houses are also raised. So, the maintenance amount paying by the respondent is not sufficient for her livelihood. In order to meet her house hold expenses, clothing, medicine, food expenses, house rent etc, she requires higher maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. Accordingly, prays for an order.”

¶32

Thus, the wife had filed divorce petition in M.C.No.309/2011 before the Family Court of Mysuru, which was ended in compromise on 10.06.2014. As

¶33

¶34

could be seen from the Annexure- A certified copy of the order sheet in M.C.No.309/2011, the husband had agreed to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/per month to the wife. After lapse of few years, the wife filed C.Misc.No.12/2018 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Mysuru for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.12,000/- and the same was allowed in part, enhancing maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month payable by the husband to the wife. Both the parties submit that the actual amount of maintenance which the husband is liable to pay is Rs.3,000+3,000= Rs.6,000/-.

¶35

Sri B. Roopesha Kumar, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/husband submits that an opportunity was not given to the revision petitioner to file his objections and to contest the matter. When the matter was posted for evidence of revision

¶36

¶37

respondent, on that day the wife herself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. On that day, the husband could not attend the Court as he was suffering from viral fever. Though his counsel represented on his behalf, the cross-examination of P.W.1 was taken as nil and since objections were not filed, arguments were also taken as heard and posted for order and the order was pronounced on 20.09.2018. In the circumstance, the revision petitioner submits that there was no necessity of such urgency and the Family Court in the interest of principles of natural justice ought to have granted an opportunity to the respondent- husband to file his objections and to contest the matter. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submits that the revision petitioner is paying the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- promptly to the wife.

¶38

¶39

Sri D.K.Lokesh for Sri P.Nataraju, learned

¶40

counsel for the revision-respondent opposes the contention of the revision petitioner and submitted that the amount of maintenance which was ordered in C.Misc.No.204/2009 i.e., Rs.3,000/- is very meager

¶41

and in order to meet the day to day expenses, the revision respondent requires higher maintenance amount. Hence, he prays to dismiss the present petition.

¶42

In the over all facts and circumstances of

¶43

the case and in the ends of principles of natural justice, an opportunity of ‘being heard’ ought to have been given to the revision petitioner. Hence, I find that an opportunity shall be given to the revisionpetitioner/husband to lead his evidence, if he chooses to do so by filing an affidavit or to cross-examine the revision-respondent/wife and to submit his arguments. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The

¶44

¶45

impugned order is set aside and the matter stands remanded to Family Court for reconsideration afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties as stated above. Both parties are hereby directed to appear before the Family Court on 05.08.2021.

¶46

Considering the points urged by the wife regarding increase in the price of essential commodities and to meet out her day to day requirements, in terms of interim maintenance, the revision-petitioner husband shall go on to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the revision-respondent/wife till the disposal of the remanded petition.

¶47

Ordered accordingly.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri Prakash v. Smt Dakshayani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakash v. Smt Dakshayani

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

Raju B Vs Nilesh O Jain

Sri. Naveen Kumar. R Vs Manjula

G Krishnappa Vs R Narayanaswamy

Sri Shaik Khadeer Hussain Vs Sri K P Mohammed

Smt Vathsala Kamath Vs Sri R. Panduranga Prabhu

S G Anandthirtharao Vs Smt H R Geetha