Allowed

Smt Latha v. Sri Ravishanakar a L

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022RPFC/53/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order dismissing a maintenance application. The High Court held that the Family Court erred in not considering the undisputed objections admitted by the respondent regarding the payable maintenance arrear and set aside the impugned order for remand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Family Court dated 22.07.2020 set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration within six months.

Smt Latha Vs Sri Ravishanakar a L — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

RPFC NO.53 OF 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.53 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LATHA W/O RAVISHANKAR A.L. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT UDUVARE DAKHALE VILLAGE, GORURU, ARALIKATTE, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK -573 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DEVENDRA N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. RAVISHANAKAR A.L. S/O LAKSHME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS TELECOM DEPARTMENT (B.S.N.L), MOODALAHIPPI VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.V. SHASTRI AND SRI. RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22^ND JULY, 2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.22 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT HASSAN, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 128 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶16

¶17

RPFC NO.53 OF 2021

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.22 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Hassan (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court’), challenging the order dated 22^nd July, 2020, dismissing the application filed under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶21

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

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-wife has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.42 of 2013, seeking maintenance. The said petition was allowed by directing the respondent-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.87 of 2014 for the recovery of sum of Rs.2,96,000/-, whereby the said petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-husband to pay a balance maintenance of Rs.22,500/-. It is the grievance of the

¶23

¶24

RPFC NO.53 OF 2021

¶25

petitioner-wife that she has not received maintenance from 04^th April, 2017 till the filing of petition, quantified as Rs.50,500/-. Hence, the petitioner-wife filed application under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court. Respondent-husband entered appearance and filed objections. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by order dated 22^nd July, 2020, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-wife has presented this revision petition.

¶26

I have heard Sri. Devendra N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S.V. Shastri along with Sri. Ravindranath K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶27

Sri. Devendra N., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, invited the attention of Court to paragraph 4 of the statement of objections filed by the respondent herein before the Family Court and contended that the said aspect has not been considered by the Family Court while passing the impugned order.

¶28

Per contra, Sri. S.V. Shastri along with Sri. Ravindranath K., learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶29

¶30

RPFC NO.53 OF 2021

¶31

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

¶32

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the undisputed fact that the petitioner herein has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.42 of 2013 before the Family Court, seeking maintenance and the said petition came to be allowed with a direction to the respondent herein to pay a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. In this regard, the grievance of the petitioner-wife was that she has not received maintenance from 04^th April, 2017 till the date of filing of the petition. The respondent herein has filed statement of objections as per the Annexure-C and Paragraph 4 of statement of objections reads as under:

¶33

“4. ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ gÉ¸ÁàAqÉAlgÀÄ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ 4,000/- gÀÆ. fÃªÀ£ÁA±À ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ±À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 12 wAUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ ¨ÁQAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀ fÃªÀ£ÁA±À ªÉÆvÀÛ 48,000/- gÀÆ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV vÀ¥ÀÄà ¯ÉRÍZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ 50,500/- gÀÆ. ¨ÁQ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî Cfð zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D PÁgÀt¢AzÀ¯ÉÃ ¸ÀzÀj Cfð ªÀeÁªÁUÀ®Ä ¨ÁzÀåªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶34

On perusal of the averments made in the statement of objections, the respondent herein has stated that the

¶35

¶36

RPFC NO.53 OF 2021

¶37

maintenance for twelve months would be Rs.48,000/-, however, the Family Court without considering the same has passed the impugned order which requires to be reconsidered by the Family Court. It is to be observed here that the order passed in the earlier in Criminal Miscellaneous No.42 of 2013 has to be scrupulously followed by the respondent-herein unless the same is modified by this Court in the respective revision petition and on account of finding recorded by the Family Court at Paragraph 12 of the impugned order, I am of the view that the respondent himself has stated in the objections that the maintenance of Rs.48,000/- has to be payable and the said aspect has not been considered by the Family Court. In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 22^nd July, 2020 passed by the Family Court is to be setaside remitting back to the Family Court to reconsider the petition. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

i) Revision petition is allowed;

¶40

ii) Order Dated 22^nd July, 2020 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.22 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Hassan is set aside by remanding the

¶41

¶42

RPFC NO.53 OF 2021

¶43

matter to the Family Court for reconsideration;

¶44

iii) It is also made clear that since, the claim made by the petitioner is under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Family Court shall dispose of the petition at the earliest, and in any event within an outer limit of six months from the date of appearance of parties taking into consideration the observation made in this revision petition.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

ARK

Smt Latha v. Sri Ravishanakar a L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Latha v. Sri Ravishanakar a L

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

R Annadanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rekha Hanu Vs the Commissioner

Sri v C Manjunath Vs Mr a S Bangaru Kuldeep

K H Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramya R Vs B.v.Deepak

Miss Saniya Kounain Vs Salman a