A KSRTC driver filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging an order granting him Rs 5000 maintenance for his wife and Rs 3000 for their minor daughter. The High Court dismissed the petition at the stage of filing.
The petition was dismissed at the stage itself without further proceedings.
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 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
RPFC No.43/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI.G.PRABHUKUMAR S/O GOVINDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS KSRTC DRIVER R/AT BEHIND S.M.E. CONVENT VIJAYANAGARA EXTENTION, GANDHINAGAR, SAGAR TOWN-577401. ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ARAVIND UPADHYE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
R/AT C/O PARVATHAMMA W/O RAMESH, KAMAKSHI STREET
2
2ND CROSS, BEHIND LIC OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA -577 201. ..RESPONDENTS
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2021 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.131/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the petition is listed for orders, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is taken up for
final disposal.
3
the order of the Family court which is as under:
“It is pleaded that respondent is the husband of petitioner No.1, their marriage was solemnized on 09.06.2008 in Sri.Chowdeshwari Temple, Kargal, Sagar Taluk as per their customs and rituals in presence of their respective elderly persons. Out of their wedlock petitioner No.1 has given birth to the petitioner No.2 on 31.08.2009. After the birth of female child, the respondent and his parents and sisters abused revision respondent No.1 in foul language without providing food, confined her in the room. Claiming negligence by the husband and unable to maintain herself and the child, a claim petition was filed for maintenance before the trial court.
4
5
6. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits
that petition for maintenance was filed only to harass the revision petitioner. The revision petition is filed admitting the relationship but denying the averments. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that the petitioner is a KSRTC employee and for the past one year salaries are not paid and when the court expressed its surprise over non payment then learned counsel submits that the amount is not regularly paid. When the court expressed to issue notice to KSRTC learned counsel expressed his regrets over the submission. He is stated to be driver and getting monthly salary of Rs.14,813/- in net. To a query it was submitted petitioner has put in 10 years of service. It is highly surprising to hear the submission of the learned counsel that the driver with service of 10 years is getting Rs.14,813/- as salary. Prima facie the submission does not appear to be based on
6
reality. There are no materials to show that the revision respondent No.1 is earning to maintain herself and the child. The maintenance ordered is Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively to revision respondents 1 and 2. I do not find the revision petition is filed for good reasons. There are no bonafides and petition does not deserve any further proceedings.
Petition is dismissed at this stage itself.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to uphold or set aside the Family Court order granting maintenance to a wife and minor child against a husband driver.
Whether the revision petition filed by the husband is bona fide.
Whether to allow the revision petition to proceed or dismiss it at the filing stage.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. G. Prabhukumar
Smt. Bhagya B.
Kumari P. Janmitha
N.K.Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
