Dismissed

T.Anjineya S/O T. Venkanna v. Smt.Pramila W/O T Anjineya

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022RPFC/100046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order awarding maintenance. Holding that the impugned order was just given the husband admitted owning a hotel and land, the Court upheld Rs.5,000 monthly for the wife and no arrears for the son.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month to the wife and Rs.3,000 per month to the son till majority, without arrears, upheld.

T.Anjineya S/O T. Venkanna Vs Smt.Pramila W/O T… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100046 OF 2019 (-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T.ANJINEYA S/O T. VENKANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O.HALARVI VILLAGE, TALUK : KAROOL, DIST:BALLARI

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.PRAMILA W/O T ANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE R/O C/O POSTMAN GADILINGAPPA, DOOR NO.6, WARD NO.24, KORCHA STREET, BEHIND SELECT FUNCTION HALL, C B BALLARI-583101.

¶13

MINOR NAVEEN SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT.PRAMILA R/O C/O POSTMAN GADILINGAPPA, DOOR NO.6, WARD NO.24, KORCHA STREET, BEHIND SELECT FUNCTION HALL, C B BALLARI-583101

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶16

R2 – MINOR REP BY R1)

¶17

¶18

��

¶19

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:13.11.2018, IN CRL.MISC. NO.329/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in Crl. Misc. No.329/2017 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, challenging the order dated 13.11.2018, 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, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 05.06.2002 and in their wedlock, child by name Naveen (petitioner No.2) was born on 04.01.2004. It is further averred that, a female child was born and due to negligence of the respondent, the child died. It is further stated by the petitioners that, the respondent was not looking after the petitioner - wife and the child and they were

¶25

¶26

��

¶27

not being given proper food and there was physical and mental harassment for the petitioners and as such, the petitioners left the matrimonial home. Hence the petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.329/2017 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

¶28

After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the petition. It is further averred by the respondent-husband that, the respondent is working as coolie and he was looking after the petitioners by providing basic needs. However, the petitioners were torturing the respondent-husband and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was examined herself as PW1 and produced 7 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. Respondent was examined himself as RW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent.

¶30

The Family Court after considering the material on

¶31

record, by its order dated 13.11.2018, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of

¶32

¶33

��

¶34

Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 - wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 till he attains the age of majority. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent – husband has presented this petition.

¶35

Heard Sri.Gode Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.B. S. Sangati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶36

Sri.Gode Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband drew the attention of the Court to paragraph 17 of the impugned order and argued that, the Family Court has not properly assessed the evidence on record in the right perspective and in fact, the petitioner is struggling very hard to eke out his livelihood and accordingly he sought for interference of this Court. He further argued that, petitioner No.2 has attained the age of majority and therefore, award of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.2 is to be interfered with.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – wife and child, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

¶38

¶39

��

¶40

In the light of the submissions made by the learned

¶41

counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage of petitioner No.1 – wife with the respondent – husband was solemnized on 05.06.2002 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born on 04.01.2004. In view of the admission made by petitioner No.1 and the respondent that the petitioner No.2 was born on 04.01.2004, the petitioner No.2 has attained the age of majority on 04.01.2022 and therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - husband with regard to petitioner No.2 is just and proper and hence petitioner No.2 - Naveen is not entitled for maintenance from the date of attaining majority. However, it is made clear that the respondent - husband shall pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 - child till he attains the age of majority as ordered by the Family Court and there should not be any arrears of maintenance.

¶42

Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would also indicate that the respondent - husband has admitted in the cross-examination that he is owning 2 acres of land and also owning a hotel. In that view of the matter, award of maintenance

¶43

¶44

��

¶45

Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.1 - wife is just and proper as the petitioner No.1 is residing separately from the respondent-husband and hence the finding recorded by the Family Court cannot found fault in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025. In the result, Revision Petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.

¶46

��

¶47

gab

T.Anjineya S/O T. Venkanna v. Smt.Pramila W/O T Anjineya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Anjineya S/O T. Venkanna v. Smt.Pramila W/O T Anjineya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Momin Enterprises Vs M/S Malpe Foods

Ramappa S/O Lakkappa Tamadaddi Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Girija W/O Krishnamurthy Barker Vs Shri. Krishnamurthy S/O Yallappa Barker

Sri Sharanappagouda S/O Shankaragouda Vs Muttappa S/O Yallappa Kuri

Chandrahas S/O Chinnappa Balagannavar Vs Smt.Sunita

Smt.Ragini.B.Yadahalli Vs Sri.Sudhindra S.Kumasagi