Allowed

Manojkumar S/O Mohanrao Hilalpure v. Smt Pooja W/O Manojkumar Hilalpure

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2022RPFC/100018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a revision petition challenging an order granting maintenance on ex-parte grounds. The Court held that the notice served was at an incorrect address, depriving the respondent of contesting the matter, leading it to remit the case for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Koppal in Crl.Misc.No.268/2020 dated 11.01.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted.

Manojkumar S/O Mohanrao Hilalpure Vs Smt Pooja W/O… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶5

R.P.F.C. NO.100018 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANOJ KUMAR S/O MOHANRAO HILALPURE AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT PURSUING PHD. R/O: BITS PILANI, K.K. BIRLA, GOA, CAMPUS HOSTEL, BLOCK NO.5, ROOM NO.148, N.H. 17, B, ZUARINAGAR, GOA STATE-403726, NOW R/O C, BLOCK-601, ROSE BOWL SOCIETY, MDR-43, ZURINAGAR, SANCOALE, GOA, GOA STATE-403726.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. POOJA W/O MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BIDAR, NOW R/O C/O BANURAO BORALE, SHIVASHANTAVEER NAGAR, WARD NO.28, KOPPAL TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

KUM. MANVITA D/O MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BIDAR, NOW R/O C/O BANURAO BORALE

¶13

¶14

SHIVASHANTAVEER NAGAR, WARD NO.28, KOPPAL TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 MOTHER-GUARDIAN.

¶15

(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1. R2 IS MINOR R/BY R1.)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO. 268/2020 DATED 11.01.2021 BY THR PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL.

¶18

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADIMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.P.G.Mogali., learned counsel for petitioner and

¶21

Sri.Subhash J.Baddi., learned counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

¶22

2. Though the revision petition is listed for admission,

¶23

with consent on behalf of learned counsel for respective parties, it is heard finally.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

¶25

referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.

¶26

¶27

The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

¶28

The first petitioner and the respondent are husband and

¶29

wife. The second petitioner is the daughter. It is stated that

¶30

due to difference of opinion and misunderstandings, they started living separately. The respondent is pursuing Ph.D., by residing in the address shown in the cause title since many years.

¶31

It is stated that the petitioners filed

¶32

Crl.Misc.No.268/2020 seeking maintenance alleging that the respondent has willfully neglected to maintain her and the child. It is specifically stated that the respondent was not served with the summons in the said petition. He was not aware of filing of the petition. It is said that in the cause title of Miscellaneous case, the address is shown as Goa but the summons was sent to Bidar where he is not residing. It is also stated that the summons returned with an endorsement that it was not claimed. It is averred that the first petitioner managed to see that the summons was sent through post and

¶33

¶34

returned with such an endorsement. Hence, the respondent was placed ex-parte.

¶35

On the basis of chief examination evidence of the first petitioner, the petition came to be allowed in part. Hence, this petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.

¶37

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

¶38

respective parties and perused the petition papers with care.

¶39

The simple question which requires consideration is whether the matter requires a remand?

¶40

The issue involved in the captioned petition falls on a narrow compass. The petitioners filed a petition under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance alleging

¶41

¶42

that the respondent has willfully neglected and refused to maintain them.

¶43

Suffice it to note that in the cause title of the Miscellaneous petition, the address of the respondent-husband is shown that he is residing at Mechanical department, BITS Pilani K K Birla Goa Campus, Hostel Block CH.5, Room No.148, NH 17 B, by pass Road, Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Goa-403726. However, for the best reasons know to the petitioners the notice was sent to Bidar. The summons returned with an endorsement that it was not claimed. The Family Court placed the respondent ex–parte and proceeded to pass interim order for payment of interim maintenance. Subsequently, the petition was allowed in part holding that the first petitioner is entitled for maintenance of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month till her life time and the second petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) per month till she attains majority.

¶44

¶45

It is the contention of the respondent-husband that he is

¶46

residing at Goa and not in Bidar. In this Court also he adhered to the said contention.

¶47

Sri.P.G.Mogali., learned counsel in presenting his

¶48

argument strenuously urged that the respondent is residing at Goa, but the process/ notice is taken to the address at Bidar. Counsel further contended that the petitioners have intentionally taken out notice to different address, wherein the respondent/ husband was not at all residing. Counsel therefore, submits that the respondent has lost the opportunity of contesting the matter on merits. Hence, he submitted that the matter requires a remand.

¶49

By way answer, learned counsel, Sri.Subhash J.Baddi., submits that the parents of the respondent-husband are residing at Bidar and the parents have received the notice on behalf of respondent-husband. Hence, he sought to urge that the notice is sufficient and thus the Family Court is justified in placing the respondent ex-parte . Learned counsel

¶50

¶51

therefore, submits that the order passed by the Family Court placing respondent as Ex-parte is just and proper. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

I have considered the rival contentions urged on behalf of respective parties. I have also perused the acknowledgement which is furnished along with the petition. A cursory look of the address depicts that the notice is taken to the address at Bidar. As rightly contended by learned counsel, the respondent is a resident of Goa however, the petitioners have taken out notice at Bidar.

¶53

In my considered opinion, the respondent has lost an opportunity of contesting the matter on merits. I should observe that respondent should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. It is perhaps well to observe that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if respondent is given an opportunity to contest the matter.

¶54

¶55

Hence, this Court deem it appropriate to set-aside the

¶56

order passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Koppal in Crl.Misc.No.268/2020.

¶57

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed . The order dated:11.01.2021 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Koppal in Crl.Misc.No.268/2020 is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court.

¶58

The parties are represented by learned counsel; hence the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 23.11.2022 without awaiting any further notice from the Court.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

TKN

Manojkumar S/O Mohanrao Hilalpure v. Smt Pooja W/O Manojkumar Hilalpure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manojkumar S/O Mohanrao Hilalpure v. Smt Pooja W/O Manojkumar Hilalpure

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

Bhimappa Vs Keshav

Smt Satyavati Suresh Naik Vs Sri Sheena Kallappa Moger

Smt.Veena Kaddi Vs Sri.Rajkumar Basava

Shri.Irappa S/O Sangappa Kadkol, Vs Shri.Chandrappa S/O Rachappa Patil

Smt. Chaitra (Shivaganga) W/O. Mylarappa Barker Vs Sri. Mylarappa B Barker

Sri.Raghavendra S/O Venkatraman Gunga Vs Smt.Saroja W/O Laxman Gunga