Allowed

Shrinivas S/O Ramu Gadag v. Smt Kaveri W/O Shrinivas Gadag

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2022RPFC/100047/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging interim maintenance order. Court held evidence was incomplete due to pandemic and closed witness list. Order remanded to Family Court for fresh evidence but upheld interim maintenance during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside, matter remanded for fresh evidence, interim maintenance of Rs.7000/month retained pending final order.

Shrinivas S/O Ramu Gadag Vs Smt Kaveri W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100047 OF 2022 (-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRINIVAS S/O RAMU GADAG AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AUTRO DRIVER R/O GOLLAR ONI, 5^TH CROSS, WARD NO.7, MRITYUNJAYA NAGAR DHARWAD.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M. M. NAIKWADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT KAVERI W/O SHRINIVAS GADAG AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SARASWATI YALLAPPA GOLLAR GOLLAR COLONY, 2^ND CROSS, SHIVAJAI CIRCLE, DHARWAD

¶13

DIVYA D/O SHRINIVAS GADAG AGE. 2 YEARS O4 MONTHS (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR SINCE REPRESENTED BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. S. B. DODDANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2021 PASSED BY THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD IN CRL.MISC NO.108/2019 AWARDING MAINTENANCE PAYABLE BY RESPONDENT AT RS.5000/- PER MONTH TO PETITIONER NO.1 AND RS.2000/- TO PETITIONER NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

¶19

��

¶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.108/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court Dharwad, challenging the order dated 23.01.2021, 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 petitioners that, petitioner No.1 married the respondent on 15.04.2018 and in their wedlock, a child was born and the child has been arraigned as petitioner No.2 in the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent was not looking after the needs of the petitioners and he was not able to provide medical treatment and therefore, petitioners left the matrimonial home and living separately and petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No. 108/2019 seeking maintenance.

¶25

�� On service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objections countering the averments made in the

¶26

¶27

��

¶28

petition. It is the case of the respondent that he is earning Rs.200/per day and therefore, it is very difficult for him to maintain the petitioner.

¶29

�� In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was examined herself as PW1 and no documents were produced on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent has also not entered the witness box and filed any documents to prove his case.

¶30

�� The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 23.01.2021, allowed the petition in part and respondent-husband was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.2000/- to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred this petition.

¶31

�� I have heard Sri.M. M. Naikwadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. S. B. Doddanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶32

�� Sri. M. M. Naikwadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein made available the order sheet of the Family Court and argued that sufficient time has not been given to the

¶33

¶34

��

¶35

parties to lead their evidence and in this regard he invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 23.11.2020 and accordingly he sought for interference of this Court.

¶36

�� Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

¶37

�� in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 married the respondent on 15.04.2018 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It has also come in the finding recorded by the Family Court that there is rift in the family and as such, the petitioners left the matrimonial home and residing along with the parents of petitioner No.1. This fact would indicate that both the petitioners and respondent are living separately.

¶38

�� Insofar as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the Family Court. However, perusal of the order sheet produced by the respondenthusband shows that the matter was sub judiced before the Family Court during COVID-19 pandemic and the evidence of PW1 is also

¶39

¶40

��

¶41

not completed as she was absent and her evidence was closed on 23.12.2020. Undisputably, there is no evidence on the part of the respondent. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that a fair opportunity be provided to the parties to adduce evidence before the Family Court to determine the just maintenance to be given by the respondent-husband to the petitioners. In the result I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The petition is allowed in part .

¶44

ii. The order dated 23.01.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.108/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to both sides.

¶45

iii. It is made clear that, till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Family Court, respondenthusband shall pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/-

¶46

¶47

��

¶48

per month to petitioner No.2 as ordered by the Family Court.

¶49

iv. It is also made clear that the Family Court shall conclude the entire proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶50

v. Since the parties are represented through their respective counsel before this Court, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 27.07.2022, without waiting for further notice.

¶51

In view of disposal of the main petition, no further orders are

¶52

required to be passed on I.A.3/2022.

¶53

��

¶54

gab

Shrinivas S/O Ramu Gadag v. Smt Kaveri W/O Shrinivas Gadag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinivas S/O Ramu Gadag v. Smt Kaveri W/O Shrinivas Gadag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburao Surendrasa Khatawate Vs Smt.Gayatri W/O Baburao Khatawate

Narayan S/O Appanna Badiger Vs Smt. Jayashree Alias Sunanda W/O Narayan Badiger

Shridhar S/O. Sundaram.P. Vs Mrs.Shoba W/O. Shridhar.S.

Gulagandi Shivappa Vs Gulagandi Shivalingappa

Sri. Cherukuppalli Neelakanteshwara Rao S/O Late C H Narayana Vs Smt. M Sreedevi W/O C H Neelakanteshwara Rao D/ M Danappa

Smt Jamrud Begaum Vs the Deputy Commissioner Koppal District