Disposed

Mahadevappa v. Vinay Kumar S.M.

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024RPFC/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father challenged a Family Court order granting his son Rs.8,000 monthly maintenance. Parties filed a joint memo: the petitioner's other son would deposit Rs.10,00,000 in a nationalised bank, with interest withdrawable monthly by the respondent through his guardian as full and final settlement. The High Court recorded the joint memo and disposed of the revision accordingly.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahadevappa Vs Vinay Kumar S.M. — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:40188 RPFC No. 1 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV. PET FAMILY COURT NO.1 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHADEVAPPA, S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT G.B.N. ROAD, NILAKANTESHWARA BADAVANE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, PIN-572 132.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

VINAY KUMAR S.M., S/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT C/O. MYDALA VILLAGE, URDAGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, PIN-572 140.

¶14

REP BY GUARDIAN B.G. NAGARATHNA, W/O. HIRENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT MYDALA VILLAGE, URDAGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, PIN-572 140.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:40188 RPFC No. 1 of 2020

¶19

THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.123/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This RPFC is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.123/2018 dated 04.10.2019 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru whereby, the Trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the son. Aggrieved thereby, the father is before this Court.

¶23

The age of the petitioner/father is 69 years. The respondent/son is from the first marriage. Later, he contracted the second marriage and the son from the second marriage is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the bank and whatever the interest that accrues, the respondent/son is at liberty to withdraw the same. When this submission is made before this Court, this Court had directed them to file a joint memo. Today, a joint memo is filed before this Court and the parties are also present. It is submitted that both the parties

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:40188 RPFC No. 1 of 2020

¶26

are interested for such compromise and accordingly, they have filed a joint memo before this Court. The joint memo reads thus:

¶27

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT

¶28

The petitioner and respondent above named submit as follows: -

¶29

1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in C.Misc. No.123/2018, thereby the learned trial judge directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance sum of Rs. 8000/-per month from the date of petition till his lifetime.

¶30

2. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the above petition, due to the intervention of the, elders and well-wishers of the parties to the petition, the petitioner and the respondent have agreed to settled the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶31

3. It is further submitted that in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties, the other son of petitioner by name Santhosh Kumar (who born through his second wife) has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on behalf of the petitioner, in the interest bearing Deposits scheme in a

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:40188 RPFC No. 1 of 2020

¶34

Nationalized Bank at Tumakuru in the joint names of the respondent and Santhosh Kumar (who is the other son of the petitioner) towards full and final settlement of the maintenance of the respondent during his life time. The respondent has no objection for the same.

¶35

4 It is further submits that in terms of the settlement it has been further agreed between the parties that the respondent represented by his guardian is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on deposit amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-from the bank every month and the petitioner and his son Santhosh Kumar have no objection to the same.

¶36

5 It is further submits that in terms of the settlement, the petitioner, the son of the petitioner and the respondent are agreed that the respondent is not entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-deposited in terms of the settlement, without the prior permission from the Family Court at Tumakuru.

¶37

6. It is further submits that in terms of the settlement, the petitioner, the son of the petitioner and the respondent are further agreed that in the event of filing the application for withdrawal of the amount by the respondent before the Prl family court, Tumkur. The learned judge family court is required to issue prior notice to the petitioner and to the son of the petitioner by name Santosh Kumar,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:40188 RPFC No. 1 of 2020

¶40

upon hearing on the application so filed by the respondent the learned trial judge may permit to withdraw the amount for genuine cause. Either the petitioner nor the said Santhosh Kumar has no lien on the said amount and they are not entitled to withdraw the same.

¶41

7. It is further submits that in terms of the agreement it is further agreed between the parties that the respondent is entitled to receive the periodical interest through his guardian to which either the petitioner nor son Santhosh Kumar has no objection.

¶42

8. It has been agreed between the parties that the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-towards full and final settlement of maintenance amount to the respondent doesn't affect his right to seek partition of his share in the joint family properties against the petitioner. The respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance during his life time from the petitioner herein thenceforth under any circumstances.

¶43

9. The respondent has no objection to modify the order impugned passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family court Tumakuru in terms of this Joint Memo and the above petition may be disposed of accordingly.

¶44

WHEREFORE, the petitioner and respondent most respectfully pray that the Hon'ble Court may kindly

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:40188 RPFC No. 1 of 2020

¶47

be pleased to record this joint memo and dispose of the above petition in terms of the joint memo by modifying the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family court Tumakuru in C.Misc.No.123/2018 by allowing this memo in the interest of justice.

¶48

In the light of the joint memo, the RPFC is disposed off and the joint memo shall be annexed to the order.

¶49

All I.As., in the RPFC, shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶51

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Mahadevappa v. Vinay Kumar S.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahadevappa v. Vinay Kumar S.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Radha Vs Dr C Ashok

Sri Honnappa Vs Smt Parvathamma N

Mrs. Pooja Maddolkar Vs Mr. Darshan Ramesh Maddolkar

Sri Manjunath Vs Smt. Savithri

Smt Siddagangamma Vs Vishwanath B

Swathi K Vs Ameliorate Realtors Pvt. Ltd.