Disposed

R S Gopalkrishna v. Shyamala Hegde

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021RPFC/23/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Family Court revision petition, the husband challenged an order granting maintenance. The court noted the husband’s claim of voluntary payment and, upon counsel’s submission that he has complied, disposed of the petition as unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed off as unwarranted in light of the petitioner’s alleged voluntary compliance with the maintenance order.

R S Gopalkrishna Vs Shyamala Hegde — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

R.P.F.C. NO.23 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

R S GOPALKRISHNA S/O SHESHAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A RAMATHIRTHA VILLAGE LINGANAMAKKI POST SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577421

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . SHYAMALA HEGDE W/O R S GOPALKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶13

2 . ANUSHREE

¶14

D/O R S GOPALKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶15

SINCE THE SECOND RESPONDENT MINOR REP BY RESPONDENT NO.1, MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶16

BOTH R/AT NO.41, VIJAYASHREE 7TH MAIN, YADAVAGIRI MYSURU-570020

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.K. MOHAN AND SRI. C.M. ASHWATH, ADV. FOR R1; R2 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R1)

¶18

¶19

THIS RPFC FILED U/S.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2018 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.149/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT MYSURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE AND ETC., THIS R.P.F.C. COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This revision petition is filed by the husband challenging the order dated 15.09.2018 passed by the I Additional Principal Civil Judge, Family Court, Mysuru (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) in C.Misc.No.149/2016. By the aforesaid order, the trial Court granted maintenance of a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 herein and rejected the grant of maintenance to the respondent No.1.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the husband has been paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- since August-2021 towards the maintenance and upkeep of respondent No.2 and that he has complied with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that till respondent No.2 attains the age of majority, the

¶24

¶25

respondent No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- every month in the name of respondent No.2 from out of the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, this revision petition is disposed off as unwarranted as the petitioner has voluntarily has complied with the order passed by the Court below.

¶28

It is however open for the petitioner to seek recalling this order, in case the submission made above is incorrect.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

NR/NM

R S Gopalkrishna v. Shyamala Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Gopalkrishna v. Shyamala Hegde

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

Marappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Krishil Capital Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr N Venugopal Reddy

Dr Rajani Pai Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Hidayatulla Babumiya Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

Chidananda Reddy Vs T Thimma Reddy @ Thadaparthi Thimmanna

Sri Somegowda Vs Assistant Commissioner