The High Court at Bengaluru dismissed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act as not maintainable, holding the petition lacked legal basis.
Petition dismissed as not maintainable; costs of Rs.2,000 payable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
RPFC No.215/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. K S CHANDRU BAI @ CHANDRU BAI W/O T BABU VIJENDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC:HOUSE WIFE/LECTURER C/O LATE K V SUBBARAO R/O 596, 10TH CROSS II MAIN, SRI NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE – 577 004. ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE- ABSENT)
AND:
T BABU VIJENDRA S/TULOSAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC:BUSINESS R/A No.71/2, BYADARAHALLI HONNALI TALUK BANGALORE – 560 091. ..RESPONDENT
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY FAMILY COURT, DAVANGERE IN M.C.No.220/2012 FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(ia) (iii) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE
2
ACT MAY NOT BE MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT. THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
“Dates Events
“25.11.2016: The respondent is the wedded wife of the petitioner. The respondent herein has filed a M.C.No.220/2012 against this petitioner before the learned Family Court at Davanagere Under Sec.12 of the D.V.Act, 2005, which is allowed in part on 25.11.2016, and wherein the lower court has awarded the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- P.M from the date of petition to the petitioner/respondent herein.
Hence the petitioner in trial court prefers this Revision Petition on the following among other grounds.”
3
3. Petition filed by learned counsel for petitioner
reads as under:
“The petitioner above named respectfully submits as follows:-
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4
Marriage Act, 1955, has sought for the relief of decree in the nature of divorce by dissolving the marriage dt. 22.02.2012, which was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent as contemplated under law and court cost, etc.
GROUNDS
5
the Hindu Marriage Act against husband-Sri.Babu Vijendra is filed. Thus, learned counsel has left the entire petition incomplete and has injected confusion into very context of the case. However office has noted the same and listed the matter to hear on maintainability.
representation.
Petition is dismissed as not maintainable with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within seven days.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act filed against a dissolution decree is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. K S Chandru Bai @ Chandru Bai
T Babu Vijendra
N.K.Sudurndhara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
