Dismissed

Somappa S/O Nurappa Lamani Alias Pujar v. Smt. Veena Alias Nirmala W/O Somu Alias Somappa Pujar Alias Lamani

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023RPFC/100068/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench dismissed a review petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., confirming the lower court’s decision that the amount was just and proper given the petitioner’s salary.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed and the Family Court order granting Rs. 10,000/- monthly maintenance is confirmed till the lifetime of the respondent wife.

Somappa S/O Nurappa Lamani Alias Pujar Vs Smt… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14564 RPFC No. 100068 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100068/2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SOMU @ SOMAPPA S/O NURAPPA PUJAR @ LAMANI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: LECTUERER, VIDYAVARDHAK PU COLLEGE, ITAGI, TQ: YALABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M

¶13

SMT. VEENA @ NIRMALA W/O. SOMU @ SOMAPPA PUJAR @ LAMANI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, C/O: SOMAPPA MUNIYAPPA RATHOD, R/O: MAHALINGAPUR TANDA, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶14

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 07.01.2023 PASSED IN CRIL MISC. NO. 61/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG, BY ALLOWING THE INSTANT PETITION.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14564 RPFC No. 100068 of 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petition is filed by the husband challenging the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.61/2019 dated 07.01.2023 by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag, thereby the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the wife is allowed by granting maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶22

It is stated that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 25.05.2015 at Mahalingapur and after the marriage, it is alleged that the petitioner has not treated the respondentwife in a well manner being husband and was continuously ill treating the respondent. It is stated that out of their wedlock, respondent-wife gave birth to male child on 18.05.2016. Even after the birth of the child, petitioner has not given up ill treating the respondent and has demanded dowry for his job purpose. It is also stated that subsequently after the marriage of respondent, her parents have given Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. Then,

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14564 RPFC No. 100068 of 2023

¶24

¶25

also petitioner continued ill treating the respondent. Therefore, respondent was constrained to leave the company of the petitioner and started to live along with her parents. Therefore, respondent has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance and the family court has allowed the petition and granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondents from the date of petition till realization along with costs of Rs.15,000/-.

¶26

The above said order is challenged in this petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that the petitioner has no means to give such amount besides he has to look after his old age parents. Therefore, questioned the order passed by the Family Court.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife justified the order passed by the Family Court.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14564 RPFC No. 100068 of 2023

¶30

The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife is not in dispute. It is allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had been continuously ill treating the respondent for years together and has deserted the respondent. Therefore, the respondent wife for her maintenance invoked Section 125

¶31

of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is a lecturer in college which is subjected to grant in aid and he is working there as permanent lecturer and receiving salary of Rs.83,000/- per month. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner being lecturer in a grant in aid college receiving salary of Rs.83,000/- per month and therefore, grant of maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/per month is found to be just and proper. The respondent is living along with minor child. Therefore, whatever maintenance amount granted by the Family court to the respondent needs no interference. Hence, the order passed by the Family Court needs to be confirmed.

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14564 RPFC No. 100068 of 2023

¶33

¶34

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The review petition is dismissed.

¶37

ii) The order passed in Crl.Misc. No.61/2009 dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Gadag is confirmed.

¶38

iii) The grant of maintenance by the Family Court is till the life time of the respondent-wife.

¶39

iv) If respondent remarriages, then, the order of the Family Court will not have any effect for grant of maintenance.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

HMB List No.: 4 Sl No.: 3 CT-ASC

Somappa S/O Nurappa Lamani Alias Pujar v. Smt. Veena Alias Nirmala W/O Somu Alias Somappa Pujar Alias Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somappa S/O Nurappa Lamani Alias Pujar v. Smt. Veena Alias Nirmala W/O Somu Alias Somappa Pujar Alias Lamani

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

Ninganaik S/O Fakkirnaik Lambani Vs Abdul Khadar Jilani S-O Hajarata Moulali

Smt. Kasturi W/O. Shankar Gothe Vs Smt. Yallawwa W/O. Gulapa Huggi

Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Danappa Kariyappa Karur Vs the Executive Engineer

Murarji S/O Jinnappa Tonkappanavar Vs Karabasanagouda S/O Veeranagouda Pyatigoudar

Shri.Shankar S/O Ningappa Shirur Vs the Managing Director