Partly allowed

Sri. Ravikiran S/O. Ningappa Kamble v. Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Ningappa Kamble

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024RPFC/100020/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against a Family Court order directing a son to pay Rs.9,000/- monthly maintenance to his mother under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the quantum was on the higher side given the respondent's rental income and lack of evidence of the petitioner's income, reduced it to Rs.6,000/- per month and directed payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance reduced from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month; arrears at revised rate to be deposited within six weeks.

Sri. Ravikiran S/O. Ningappa Kamble Vs Smt… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12164 RPFC No. 100020 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100020 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAVIKIRAN S/O. NINGAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: H.NO.35, WARD NO.49, BOXITE ROAD, NEAR DENTAL COLLEGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 010.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAJENDRA R.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT.MAHADEVI W/O. NINGAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H. NO.35, WARD NO.49, BOXITE ROAD, NEAR DENTAL COLLEGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 010.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(BY SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.09.2023, IN CRL.MISC. NO.420/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BELAGAVI AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12164 RPFC No. 100020 of 2024

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging order dated 01.09.2023 passed by I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi in

¶23

Crl.Misc.no.420/2017, this revision is filed.

¶24

Sri Rajendra R.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is natural son of respondent. Respondent had married Ningappa s/o Ramappa Kamble (petitioner’s father) about 35 years ago. From said marriage, they had two children namely petitioner and a daughter named Sandhya. Prior to said marriage, Ningappa had married Smt.Kempa. As he did not any issues from said marriage, he married respondent herein. Respondent filed petition on 24.08.2017 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against present petitioner and her husband Ningappa. It was submitted, during pendency of proceedings, Ningappa Kamble died. It was submitted, petitioner herein was earlier working at Bengaluru as an Architect. Due to litigation, he had to gave up his avocation at Bengaluru and return to Belagavi. Upon returning, they were staying in family house at Ambedkar Nagar, but due to continuous disturbance

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12164 RPFC No. 100020 of 2024

¶26

created by respondent, he was forced to reside separately along with his stepmother. It was submitted, thereafter respondent had let out a portion of house and getting rent of Rs.3,500/-.

¶27

It was submitted after shifting to Belagavi,

¶28

petitioner was not having regular source of income but had performed marriage of his sister and was also maintaining his stepmother. Though above facts were established before

¶29

Family Court, without proper consideration, it passed impugned order directing petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.9,000/-. It was submitted, only documents placed on record by respondent were marriage photographs and record of rights, which would not substantiate income or status of family. It was submitted, respondent had also filed suit for partition insofar as properties left behind by Ningappa Kamble. In his affidavit of assets and liabilities, petitioner has stated that his monthly income after returning to Belagavi was Rs.7,000/- and though his stepmother was getting family pension of Rs.14,000/-, same was sufficient to

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12164 RPFC No. 100020 of 2024

¶31

meet her medical expenses as she was suffering from several ailments.

¶32

On other hand, Sri Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for respondent sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, respondent was constrained to reside separately as after marriage of petitioner herein, he had failed and neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient source of income. Even her husband had also failed to maintain her. Therefore, she had filed a petition for maintenance. It was submitted, considering fact that petitioner herein was working in Bengaluru and getting salary of Rs.50,000/-, Family Court directed him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/-. Same was fully justified and did not call for interference. It was submitted, petitioner had in fact sold some of properties left behind by Ningappa Kamble and considering his status, determination was justified.

¶33

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12164 RPFC No. 100020 of 2024

¶35

6. From above, it is seen main ground of challenge

¶36

of impugned order is on quantum. In support of claim petition, respondent produced marriage photographs and record or rights. Record of rights produced would indicate immovable properties left behind by petitioner’s father Ningappa Kamble. Though petitioner had stated that his monthly income after coming back to Belagavi is around Rs.7,000/-, it is seen that there is admission about stepmother getting Rs.14,000/- per month as family pension. There is also admission that petitioner is paying EMI’s of loan taken on family house at Ambedkar Nagar, Belagavi. If it is so, there would be no justification for believing petitioner’s claim that he was earning only Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶37

On other hand, respondent has admitted that she

¶38

was getting rental income of Rs.3,500/- per month by letting out portion of house where she was residing. This would establish that she was residing in own house. While determining quantum of maintenance, Family Court has taken note of respondent’s contention that petitioner was

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12164 RPFC No. 100020 of 2024

¶40

earning Rs.50,000/- per month as Architect. Admittedly, no documents are produced to substantiate same. Taking note of contents of affidavit regarding assets and liabilities as well as fact that certain properties were left behind by petitioner’s father, quantum determined by Family Court would call for interference. Especially as respondent is getting rental income of Rs.3,500/- per month. It is seen that Family Court

¶41

referred to status of petitioner while determining quantum which would be a material irregularity. For fixation of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., status of respondent, in case, applicant were to have resided with them would be relevant. No such effort is forthcoming. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances, determination of maintenance would appear to be on higher side. Hence, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) Petition is allowed in part.

¶44

ii) Quantum of maintenance ordered by Family Court is reduced to Rs.6,000/- per month instead

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12164 RPFC No. 100020 of 2024

¶47

of Rs.9,000/- ordered by Family Court which shall be apart from rental income of respondent by letting out family home. Same shall be paid on or before 10^th of each month.

¶48

iii) Petitioner is directed to deposit arrears of maintenance at above rate within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy.

¶49

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶50

CLK,EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri. Ravikiran S/O. Ningappa Kamble v. Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Ningappa Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ravikiran S/O. Ningappa Kamble v. Smt. Mahadevi W/O. Ningappa Kamble

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

Sri. H Mallu Swami @ Mallikarjun H. Anantapur Vs Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal

Smt. Manjula W/O Late Shashikant Bagi, Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri.Basavaraj.S.Patil Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sharanabasayya Sudi Vs the State of Karnataka

The General Manager, Vs Imtiyaz Ahmed S/O. Abdul Ahmed Bellary

Smt Laxamavva W/O Shivappa Madar Vs Shivappa Madar S/O Mahadevappa