Partly allowed

Sri Venkappareddy v. Santhosha T v

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023RPFC/178/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka in a review petition enhanced maintenance awarded to parents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from Rs.2,000 to Rs.3,000 per month post-order date, while retaining Rs.2,000 for the interim period, citing the respondent's income and existing liabilities.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed in part; maintenance enhanced to Rs.3,000/month from 1.7.2022 and Rs.2,000/month from petition filing date.

Sri Venkappareddy Vs Santhosha T v — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RPFC No. 178 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

REVIEW PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 178 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VENKAPPAREDDY, S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BILASANURU VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 516.

¶10

SMT. GIRIJAMMA, W/O VENKAPPAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O BILASANURU VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 516.

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWARA R P.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

SANTHOSHA T V S/O VENKAPPAREDDY AGED 38 YEARS, D.R.R. RESERVE POLICE OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL POLICE QUARTERS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S C.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

RPFC No. 178 of 2022

¶20

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2022 PASSED IN CRI.MISC.No.191/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, is filed challenging the order dated 1.7.2022, passed by the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.191/2018, by which, the respondent herein has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to each of the petitioners herein from the date of petition.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, gross salary of the petitioner was Rs.39,464/- and the net salary was Rs.23,165/- for the month of January 2022, hence he submits that the monthly maintenance granted by Family Court is on the lower side and the same to be enhanced.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the net salary of the respondent is Rs.23,165/- out of the same, he is paying Rs.12,000/- as monthly maintenance to his wife and child. Hence, he submits that, the maintenance granted by the Family Court is just and proper and same does not warrant any interference.

¶27

¶28

RPFC No. 178 of 2022

¶29

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

The petitioners who are the parents of the respondent have filed this petition. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has drawn a gross salary of Rs.39,464/- in the month of January 2022, and net salary of the respondent was Rs.23,165/- after deduction, though the respondent is paying Rs.12,000/- as monthly maintenance to his wife and child, however, the said petition was filed after the petition Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners, which clearly implies that the petition was got filed from the wife, with an intention to deprive the petitioners herein of their legitimate rights of monthly maintenance.

¶31

Taking into consideration the salary of the respondent herein, in my view, it would suffice, if the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- is awarded to each of the petitioners herein from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 1.7.2022, and from the date of filing of the petition till the passing of the impugned order, petitioners are entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Revision Petition Family Court is allowed in part.

¶34

¶35

RPFC No. 178 of 2022

¶36

The impugned order passed by the Family Court, Davanagere, is modified. Petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each per month from the respondent from the date of petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. till 30.6.2022.

¶37

Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each per month from 1.7.2022 till their life time or the same is altered.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

¶40

Sri Venkappareddy v. Santhosha T v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkappareddy v. Santhosha T v

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

G Pratap Kumar Vs the State by Halasurgate Police

M/S Sai Srushti Estates Vs Smt Rathnamma

Sri G v Sathish Reddy Vs Sri P K Somashekara Reddy

Mr Aashir P M R Vs Sri Syed Musadiq

The Citizen House Mortgage and Housing Co. Operative Society Limited Vs J Lokanath Gowda

Bethany Education Board Vs Victoria Swamy