Allowed

Smt. Savita W/O Shivanagouda Patil v. Shri. Shivanangouda S/O Basagouda Patil

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024RPFC/100150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against inadequate maintenance under S.125 Cr.P.C.: wife granted Rs.3,000/month and child Rs.2,000/month. Court found no basis for quantum, computed husband's agricultural income from his lands, enhanced maintenance to Rs.10,000 for wife and Rs.6,000 for child, plus school fees.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced: Rs.10,000/month for wife, Rs.6,000/month for child from date of petition; school fees payable; Exs.P.4 and 5 amounts reimbursed; arrears in appropriate proceedings.

Smt. Savita W/O Shivanagouda Patil Vs Shri… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12271 RPFC No. 100150 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100150 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAVITA W/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶10

KUMARI SHINCHANA D/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: NIL, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO. 1

¶11

BOTH ARE R/O: DOMANAL, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 207.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

SHRI SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. BASAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREPADASALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 (4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO. 76/2019, DATED 11/04/2022, ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BAGALKOTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12271 RPFC No. 100150 of 2022

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Challenging order dated 11.04.2022, passed by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote in Crl. Misc. no. 76/2019, dated 11/04/2022, this petition is filed.

¶25

Sri Harish S Maigur, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent was solemnized at Hirepadasalagi village, Jamakhandi taluk on 24.04.2012. Thereafter, family members of respondent started harassing petitioner no.1 for dowry etc., and petitioners were thrown out of house and since then, petitioner no.1 was residing with her parents along with petitioner no.2. It was submitted no provision was made for maintenance by respondent despite having sufficient means. Hence, in Crl. Misc. no.76/2019, an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.

¶26

On service of notice, respondent appeared and contested application. Based on pleadings, Family Court framed issues and recorded evidence. Petitioner no.1 examined herself

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12271 RPFC No. 100150 of 2022

¶28

as PW.1 and got marked marriage invitation card, record of rights of lands held by respondent, school fees paid receipts as Exs.P.1 to 5. Respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and did not mark any document. On consideration, Family Court held that respondent had willfully neglected to maintain petitioner despite having sufficient means and petitioners were established that they were unable to maintain themselves. On quantum, Family Court held, petitioner no.1 entitled for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month during her life time or until she remarries and Rs.2,000/- in case of petitioner no.2 till she attains age of majority. Not satisfied with quantum of maintenance, applicants are in revision.

¶29

It was submitted as per Exs.P.2 and 3, respondent was having total land of 4 acres 5 guntas at Hirepadasalagi village, which were irrigated lands, growing sugarcane. It was submitted, during cross examination, respondent admitted that lands were yielding 30 tons of sugarcane per acre and its price was Rs.2,200/-. It was further submitted, respondent admitted that petitioner no.2 was school going child. Such being case, Family Court, erred in granting inadequate amount as maintenance. It was submitted, normally sugarcane yield in

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12271 RPFC No. 100150 of 2022

¶31

irrigated lands of that locality, in land acquisition cases is considered at 40-50 tons and present price of sugarcane was Rs.3,300/-. Even during 2019, it was more than Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, maintenance amount was required to be revised.

¶32

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶33

record.

¶34

From above, petitioners are seeking for revision insofar as quantum of maintenance. Respondent has not questioned impugned order. Therefore, only point that arises for consideration is:

¶35

“Whether impugned order suffers from

¶36

perversity, illegality or material irregularity and calls for interference?”

¶37

In their petition, as well as in deposition, petitioners have stated that respondent is owning two lands, record of rights of which were produced at Exs.P.2 and 3. During Cross examination of R.W.1, it is elicited that said lands are fertile lands and having irrigation facility from dam. He also admitted that said lands were used for growing sugarcane and vegetables. Though suggestion that sugarcane yield per acre

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12271 RPFC No. 100150 of 2022

¶39

was 75 to 80 tons is denied, witness admits that yield is about 30 tons. Likewise, suggestion about price of sugarcane being Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per ton is denied and admitted at Rs.2,200/-. R.W.1 also admitted about petitioner no.2 is studying in private school. Suggestion about fee being Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- is denied as due to lack of knowledge. During cross examination of PW.1, nothing material is elicited. In fact, Family Court has recorded specific finding that respondent failed to establish that petitioner no.1 was working as teacher.

¶40

While, fixing quantum of maintenance, there is absolutely no discussion or basis for determination of maintenance and same would be material irregularity calling for interference. Normally, in land acquisition cases, it is wont to consider yield of sugarcane as 40 tons and price of sugarcane at Rs.2,200/-. Thus, income per acre same would be Rs.88,000/-. Exs.P.2 and 3 would indicate respondent was holding total land of 4 acres 5 guntas, for which income would be Rs.3,66,000/-, which would be around Rs.30,500/- per month.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12271 RPFC No. 100150 of 2022

¶42

High Court of Allahabad in Veen Panda Alias Seema Panda V/s. Devendra Kumar Panda and High Court of Gujarat in Ashokkumar Kantilal Rathod V/s. Bhavanaben Ashokkumar Rathod have held normally for awarding maintenance in case of wife would be 1/3^rd of net income of husband. Likewise, in case of child, it would be ‘1/5^th’ . Thus, it would be Rs.10,000/- for petitioner no.1/wife and Rs.6,000/- for petitioner no.2/children.

¶43

Point for consideration is answered in affirmative

¶44

as above. Consequently, following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶47

ii. Impugned order is modified. Petitioner no.1 is entitle for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from date of petition till her re-marriage or during her life time, whichever is earlier and petitioner no.2 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from date of petition till she attains age of majority. Same shall be paid on or before 10^th of

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12271 RPFC No. 100150 of 2022

¶49

each month by way of direct transfer into account of petitioner no.1.

¶50

iii. Arrears to be worked out in appropriate proceedings by taking note of any interim maintenance paid by respondent.

¶51

iv. Respondent would also be required to pay school fees of petitioner no.2 for each year and reimburse amounts shown in Exs.P.4 and 5.

¶52

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶53

VB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Smt. Savita W/O Shivanagouda Patil v. Shri. Shivanangouda S/O Basagouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita W/O Shivanagouda Patil v. Shri. Shivanangouda S/O Basagouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shankar S/O Mahadev Shindhe Vs Union of India

Sri Satish S/O Mahadev Naik Vs the General Manager

Sri. Gurudev S/O Siddappa Gujanal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Praveen Ashok Gudihal Vs Smt. Indria W/O Praveen Gudihal

Basanagoud S/O Ramanagoud Goudar Vs the Karnataka State Open University

Smt. Jaya D/O Parasa Mulladar After Marriage W/O Shivappa Chitageri Vs the State of Karnataka