Husband challenged a Family Court maintenance award under Section 125 CrPC granting his wife Rs.10,000/- and minor daughter Rs.5,000/- monthly, contending it was excessive since the wife earned. The High Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100053/2023
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN S/O. ISHWAR CHAVAN, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ASSOCIATE MANAGER, BAJAJ FINANCE, HAVERI BRANCH, R/O: SIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SUNITA G. PILLAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI IN CRL. MISC. 200/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CRL.MISC.NO. 200/2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the husband aggrieved by the
order dated 17.12.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.200/2016 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Hubballi, in which, while allowing the application filed by the wife and children who are the respondents herein under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1(wife) and Rs.5,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.2 (daughter).
matrimonial home after the delivery of the Respondent No.2, she was subjected to harassment by the petitioner and his family members. She also suffered a facial paralytic attack and was admitted in Sushruta Hospital. Petitioner had insisted for huge sum of money to be paid by the parents of the Respondent No.1, as he had intended to pursue his further studies. Since the said demand was not met, the petitioner on 09.06.2015 at about 11:00 p.m., snatched all the gold ornaments of the Respondent No.1 and thrown her out of the house. She
had been to the police station and then had lodged a complaint who had summoned and advised the petitionerhusband. The harassment and the physical torture never reduced as the Respondent No.1 was subjected to further assault resulting in blood injuries. That since 09.06.2015 she stays along with her parent’s house and the petitioner has deserted her willfully without any justifiable cause and has neglected to discharge the marital obligation.
of the fact that the petitioner-husband has been earning Rs.52,628/- per month working as a Retail Office Incharge in Bandhan Bank Limited as per Ex.P.19. The Family Court has also taken note of the fact that though the petitioner contended that the Respondent No.1 working in a private company and drawing handsome salary had not produced any document in that regard. As such, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband has failed to prove that the Respondent No.1-wife was earning handsome salary and that she did not require maintenance amount from him.
per month to the Respondent No.2. The Family Court having adverted to all the contentions urged by the parties
and also adverting to the evidence produced has come to
just and proper conclusion.
interference. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
11. In view of disposal off the petition, pending
applications, if any, does not survive for consideration.
SD/JUDGE
SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's award of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter as maintenance was excessive and warranted interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Praveen S/o. Ishwar Chavan
Mrs. Vaishnavi W/o. Praveen Chavan
Bhuvana D/o. Praveen Chavan (minor, rep. by mother Vaishnavi)
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
