Allowed

Sri.Rajshekar S/O Dhanjaya Bevinmarad v. Smt.Lata W/O Rajshekar Bevinmarad

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2022RPFC/100009/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed the husband's revision petition challenging an ex-parte maintenance order. The High Court set aside the lower court's decision, remanding the case for fresh disposal after affording both parties a hearing opportunity, while directing interim maintenance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.12.2019 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh disposal after hearing both parties. Interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to wife and Rs.3,000/- t

Sri.Rajshekar S/O Dhanjaya Bevinmarad Vs Smt.Lata… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100009 OF 2020 (-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.RAJSHEKAR S/O DHANJAYA BEVINMARAD AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER NOW NIL, R/O BASESHWAR NAGAR, SHAPURPETH, NEAR SHNAKARLING TEMPLE, GADAG

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DATTATRAYA TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.LATA W/O RAJSHEKAR BEVINMARAD AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O EWS 738, 1^ST CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-5800025, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

KUMAR VISHWANATH S/O. RAJSHEKAR BEVINMARAD, AGED: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR CHILD, GUARDIAN BY HIS MOTHER SMT.LATA W/O RAJSHEKAR BEVINMARAD, 1^ST CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBALLI-580025, DIST: DHARWAD

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. M. L. VANTI, ADVOCATE; R2 – MINOR REP. BY RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶16

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:06.12.2019, IN CRL.MISC. NO.153/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.

¶18

¶19

��

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent-husband challenging the order dated 06.12.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. No.153/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Hubballi allowing the petition in part.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner wife that, marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 17.12.2012 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioners that, having not tolerated the inhmane treatment at the matrimonial home on account of demanding dowry, the petitioners left the matrimonial home and residing along with parents of petitioner No.1. Hence the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.153/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Hubballi, seeking maintenance.

¶25

¶26

��

¶27

After service of notice, it is stated at paragraph 3 of the impugned order that the respondent was served but not contested the matter. The Family Court after considering the material on record, particularly the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and taking into consideration the documents referred to at Exs.P1 to P7, by its order dated 06.12.209, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the 1^st petitioner – wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2^nd petitioner – son. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has presented this petition.

¶28

Heard Sri.Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband and Sri.M. L. Vanti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – wife and child. Perused the records.

¶29

Sri. Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband contended that, the impugned order is an ex-parte order and a fair opportunity be provided to the petitioner herein. As the summons was returned to the Court as not claimed, injustice has been caused to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, he sought for interference.

¶30

¶31

��

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

¶34

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 17.12.2012 and they had a child who is arraigned as petitioner No.2 before the Family Court. Taking into consideration the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the summons issued by the Family Court is returned as not claimed and in order to provide a fair opportunity to both sides, I am of the view that the impugned order be set aside by providing an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, if any, in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by remanding the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. In the result, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Revision Petition is allowed.

¶37

¶38

��

¶39

ii. Order dated 06.12.2009 passed in by the Family Court, Hubballi, in Crl.Misc.No.153/2019, is set aside.

¶40

iii. The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh disposal on merits, after affording an opportunity to both sides.

¶41

iv. However, it is made clear that, the respondenthusband before the Family Court shall pay the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to petitioner No.1 – wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 – son till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Family Court.

¶42

v. The Family Court is directed dispose of the case within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶43

vi. In view of appearance of the parties before this Court, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 22.08.2022 without waiting for further notice, which would cause much delay in the matter.

¶44

��

¶45

gab

Sri.Rajshekar S/O Dhanjaya Bevinmarad v. Smt.Lata W/O Rajshekar Bevinmarad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Rajshekar S/O Dhanjaya Bevinmarad v. Smt.Lata W/O Rajshekar Bevinmarad

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

Smt Padmavathi Vs Sri Gurunath

Smt Neelavva W/O Basappa Alias Belavagi Vs Basappa Alias Basavaraj S/O Veerabhadrappa Belavagi

Sri.Ravindra Namadev Sunthankar, Vs Smt.Arati Ravindra Sunthankar

Ramesh S/O. Krishnappa Yaligar Vs Gangappa S/O. Devendrappa Hurakadli

Smt.Gangamma W/O Suresh Vs Sri.Suresh S/O Late Sri Bande Gunda

Smt.Sadhana W/O. Prashant Mutagi Vs Sri.Prashant S/O. Shivalingappa Mutagi