Disposed

Smt Gangarathnamma v. Rajesh K

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024RPFC/98/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-revisions against a maintenance order granting Rs.14,000 per month to wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The husband denied the marriage, paternity of the children and service of notice via affidavit. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded to the trial Court for adjudication on merits, with liberty for perjury proceedings if statements are false.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance order set aside; matter remanded to Family Court for fresh adjudication; deposit not released pending proof of marriage and paternity; both petitions disposed.

Smt Gangarathnamma Vs Rajesh K — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 98 OF 2024 C/W

¶7

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 298 OF 2023

¶8

IN RPFC NO.98/2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.GANGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O RAJESH, R/O 6^TH CROSS, HOSAKEREHALLI, MOOKAMBIKA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 085

¶11

MISS.JAISHWARYA R., AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, D/O RAJESH

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MISS. AISHWARYA R., AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, D/O RAJESH

¶14

BOTH R/A 6^TH CROSS, HOSAKEREHALLIL, MOOKAMBIKA NAGAR, BENGALURU560 085

¶15

SINCE PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, SMT.GANGARATHNAMMA.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. CHETHAN A.C., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

RAJESH K., S/O KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NAMBIHALLI VILLAGE,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶21

NAMBIHALLI POST, SRINIVASPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 126

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. GANESHA G., ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:25.05.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.38/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125(1) (a) (b) OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶25

IN RPFC NO.298/2023

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI.RAJESH K., S/O.KADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NAMBIHALLI VILLAGE NAMBIHALLI POST SRINIVASPUR TALUK KOLAD DISTRICT - 563 126

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI.GANESHA G., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SMT.GANGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O NANJUNDAPPA W/O.RAJESH R/AT NO.6^TH CROSS HOSAKEREHALLI MOOAMBIKA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 085

¶32

MISS.JAISHWARYA R., AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS D/O RAJESH R/AT NO. 6^TH CROSS HOSAKEREHALLI MOOKAMBIKA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 085

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶34

MISS.AISHWARYA R AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS D/O RAJESH R/AT NO.6^TH CROSS HOSAKEREHALLI MOOKAMBIKA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560085

¶35

SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.GANGARATHNAMMA

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. CHETHAN A.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY R1)

¶38

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.38/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125(1)(a)(b) OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.38/2022 dated 25.05.2023 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, both the parties are before this Court.

¶43

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶45

The wife had filed RPFC.No.98/2024 and the husband had filed RPFC.No.298/2023. The trial Court by way of order impugned had granted an amount of Rs.4000/for maintenance to the wife till her lifetime and an amount of Rs.3000/- each per month for the maintenance and educational expenses of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 till their marriage or till they become financially independent whichever is earlier. While passing the order, the trial Court had observed that the wife has not produced any documents to show that the husband is having income of an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. There is absolutely nothing on record to hold that the husband is having income of Rs.40,000/- per month. If the evidence of the wife is appreciated in totality, it shows that the husband deserted the wife and two children and failed to discharge his marital obligations. It is the case of the wife that she is not having any independent source of income and she is depending upon the husband remains undisputed. The trial Court observed that it is the bounden duty of the husband to take care of his wife and children. Failure of the husband to discharge his obligation leads to the conclusion that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, being his wife and children, are entitled to claim maintenance

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶47

from the husband on par with the standard of his living and the father is bound to bear the entire education expenses of the children and he is also liable to pay the maintenance. Considering the same, an amount of Rs.14,000/- per month was granted i.e., an amount of Rs.6000/- for maintenance to the wife and an amount of Rs.4000/- each to the children. Aggrieved thereby, the parties are before this Court.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1/wife submits that in the impugned order, the trial Court observed that the husband may be directed to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.4000/- per month each to the children. When it comes to the operative portion, it is shown as an amount of Rs.3000/- each per month. Further, it is submitted that the husband has not paid any maintenance to the wife when he is obligated to maintain the wife and children. There was a direction by the Court to deposit an amount of Rs.1,96,000/and it is submitted that as per the order passed by the Court, the husband has deposited the amount.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that he has nothing to do with the three of them,

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶52

neither he is the biological father of the children nor petitioner No.1 is his wife.

¶53

On 12.08.2024, when this matter came up before this Court, this court has passed the following order:

¶54

"The respondent - husband has questioned the order passed by the trial Court stating that no notice is served on him and he do not know the petitioner who claims to be his wife nor the children are his children. He has no acquaintance with them and according to him, the photographs that are filed before the Court are the morphed photographs. The husband of the petitioner is alive and there is subsisting marriage. Hence, question of respondent marrying the petitioner would not arise. The Aadhaar cards of all the parties are placed before the Court.

¶55

The respondent - husband shall file his affidavit before the Court stating that as stated before the Court, he has no acquaintance with the petitioner who filed the Criminal Miscellaneous and also the children and as per the Court order through RPAD, no notice is served at the address in which he is residing. Basing on that, further orders will be passed.

¶56

If any of the statements that are made by the respondent before this Court appears to be incorrect, perjury proceedings would be initiated against the respondent - husband.

¶57

Post these matters on 28.08.2024 and by that time, the respondent - husband shall file his affidavit before this Court."

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶59

Pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2024, an affidavit is filed by the husband wherein he denied the relationship between the parties. It is his case that he could not contest the matter before the trial Court and that the notice was not served on him.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the notice was served and after service of notice, the matter was heard by the Court. Whether the notice is served on the husband or not, now at this stage, when the paternity and the relationship itself is denied by the husband, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any order without getting the issue adjudicated by the trial Court. At the same time, when the fact remains is that the Crl.Misc.No.38/2022 is filed in the year 2022 and the RPFC is filed in the year 2023, in the light of the serious allegations made by the husband with regard to the service of notice, which is of serious concern. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the trial Court. Accordingly, the following:

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. The order passed in Crl.Misc.No.38/2022 dated 25.05.2023 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court.

¶65

ii. The trial Court shall consider the matter on merits, particularly in the light of the affidavit filed by the respondent/husband before this court stating that he is not the biological father and petitioner No.1 is not his wife. With regard to the service of notice, a proper adjudication shall be made by the trial Court.

¶66

iii. If the trial Court finds that the statements made by the respondent with regard to the paternity, the marriage and the service of notice are not correct and he has made false statement by way of an affidavit filed before this Court, the trial Court shall initiate perjury proceedings against the husband.

¶67

iv. The affidavit filed by the respondent/husband before this Court shall be sent along with the records to the trial Court.

¶68

v. The trial Court shall adjudicate the matter on the merits of it as expeditiously as possible.

¶69

vi. The amount deposited by the respondent - husband before the trial Court shall not be released in favour of petitioner No.1 - wife unless and until the trial

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:34401 RPFC No. 98 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 298 of 2023

¶72

Court comes to the finding that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and he is the biological father of the children.

¶73

vii. Accordingly, RPFC.Nos.98/2024 and RPFC.No.298/2023 are disposed off .

¶74

viii. All I.As. in these petitions shall stand closed.

¶75

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶76

MEG

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Smt Gangarathnamma v. Rajesh K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gangarathnamma v. Rajesh K

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

Smt. Gajalakshmi Vs Sri.T. Girigowda

Sri. Yogesh M Vs Smt. Sankalpa

Sri K S Venkatesh Vs Dr Spurthi Patel

Sujatha H Vs Neelamani

Samiulla Vs Ansar Pasha

Sri Pradeep O Vs Smt Ranjitha L R