Dismissed

S G Anandthirtharao v. Smt H R Geetha

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021RPFC/185/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order directing the husband to pay maintenance to his wife and minor son. The High Court rejected the husband's claim of low income, holding the argument unbelievable against background reality.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000; appellant directed to settle maintenance arrears within two months.

S G Anandthirtharao Vs Smt H R Geetha — 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.185 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S.G.Anandthirtharao, S/o.S.V.Gopinath Rao, Aged about 48 years,

¶9

Working at Venkateshwara Hardware, Rajendra Nagar, Shimoga – 577 201.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri B.S.Prasad, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Smt.H.R.Geetha, W/o. Anandthirtharao, D/o.H.S.Raghavendra,

¶14

Aged about 35 years,

¶15

House Wife.

¶16

S.G.Abhilash,

¶17

S/o.S.G.Anandthirtharao,

¶18

Aged about 12 years,

¶19

Student, Minor,

¶20

R/at by Natural Guardian Mother

¶21

Smt.H.R.Geetha, W/o.Anandthirtharao,

¶22

Both are R/at Sulebylu, Ganapathi Temple Side, Urugadur Post – 577 203,

Shivamogga District.

…Respondents

(Service of notice to R1 held sufficient V/o. dt.06.07.2021 R2 since minor represented by R1)

¶27

This RPFC is filed u/S 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 05.10.2016 passed in C.Misc.No.193/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, allowing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This RPFC coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition is directed against the Order passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga in C.Misc.No.193/2014, dated 05.10.2016 wherein, the learned judge has ordered for payment of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to each of the claimant.

¶30

In order to avoid wastage of judicial time, the substance of the case is extracted from para 2 of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 05.10.2016 as under:

¶31

“1^st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 19.10.2002 at Laxminarayana

¶32

¶33

Kalyana Mantap, Mattur, Shivamogga. It is also stated that after their wedlock, 2^nd petitioner is born. It is stated that soon after the marriage, the respondent took the petitioner No.1 to his house and they lived happily for about 18 months. The respondent is in the habit of giving torture to the 1^st petitioner. Even after birth of 2^nd petitioner he has manhandled her and given all types of ill treatment, which has been tolerated by the petitioner No.1. Respondent is basically suspicious man. Respondent has restricted the petitioner No.1 not to go outside of the house and relatives house. For this behavior of the respondent, the 1^st petitioner was totally depressed. He has also restricted the petitioner No.1 not to talk with anybody and with the neighbourers also, friends, relatives, nephew and brothers. Even in such condition, 1^st petitioner resided with the respondent for about 4 years. When the 2^nd petitioner aged about 1 ½ years,

¶34

¶35

the 1^st petitioner left the house of the respondent and started to reside along with the parents of 1^st petitioner at Solebylu. 2^nd petitioner is also studying in the government school, Durgigudi, Shivamogga. It is stated that the 1^st petitioner is the housewife and so it is very difficult for her to maintain the 2^nd petitioner and also herself. The respondent is receiving monthly rent from the tenant. He is also having Mangalore tiled house at Rathbeedi, Kadur and he is also working in a private sector and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It is stated that she has no means for her livelihood and also for the child. Accordingly, the petitioners prayed for an order. “

¶36

The revision petitioner who appeared before the Family Court has admitted the relationship with the revision respondents and submitted that he is very poor and have no means to pay the maintenance. The learned judge, Family Court on the basis of oral and documentary

¶37

¶38

evidence available, allowed the petition and ordered maintenance as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, husband has preferred this petition.

¶39

Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the revision- petitioner/husband submits that the revision petitioner is working in a hardware shop and getting monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- and he has no means to pay the maintenance, but is ready to take the respondents to the matrimonial house and also ready to look after respondents 1 and 2 to the best of his ability.

¶40

The very submission made by learned counsel regarding monthly earning of the revision petitioner is unbelievable and appears to be far away from the reality. Nowadays even in rural side, the daily wages of a labourer would be not less than 300 per day and the revision petitioner claims that his monthly income is Rs.2,500/- per month, in which event, it would be some where Rs.83 to 84 per day. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner does not appear to be proper and truth oriented.

¶41

¶42

However, the revision petitioner admits the marital and parental relationship with the respondents. The respondent No.2 is stated to have attained majority. if so, liability to maintain comes to an end and he has to make necessary application before the Family Court and as of now he cannot be considered as a major because at the time of filing of petition in the year 2016, he was 12 years, now he may be 12+5= 17 years.

¶43

Therefore, the present petition does not appear to have filed by the respondents for good reason and also there is no merit in the case. Hence, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). The revision petitioner is directed to settle the arrears of maintenance within a period of two months from today.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

S G Anandthirtharao v. Smt H R Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S G Anandthirtharao v. Smt H R Geetha

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

Sri Prakash Vs Smt Dakshayani

Smt Vathsala Kamath Vs Sri R. Panduranga Prabhu