Dismissed¶9

Chidanandappa S/O Tippanna Jogi v. Smt. Kanakamma W/O Chidanandappa Maddi Alias Madder

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2025RPFC/100003/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; strict proof of marriage not a condition precedent; disputed marital relationship; disputed paternity; Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141 relied on; Crl.Misc.No.39/2020 Family Court Koppal; revision under Section 19(4) Family Court Act 1984; RPFC No. 100003 of 2023; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; Justice E.S. Indiresh; Rs.5,000 per month maintenance; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed and the Family Court, Koppal order dated 10.12.2021 granting Rs.5,000/- per month maintenance to the wife stands undisturbed. ¶9

Chidanandappa S/O Tippanna Jogi Vs Smt. Kanakamma… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5179 RPFC No. 100003 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100003 OF 2023 (-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

CHIDANANDAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA JOGI, (IN THE FAMILY COURT THE RESPONDENT HAS WRONGLY SHOWN HIS NAME CHIDANANDAPPA S/O TIPPANNA MADDI @ MADDER) AGE: ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHAHAPUR-583234, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:33 +0530

¶11

SMT. KANAKAMMA W/O. CHIDANANDAPPA MADDI @ MADDER, (CLAIMING TO BE WIFE TO THE PETITIONER) AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHAHAPUR, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. BASAVARAJ S/O. HANAMANTHAPPA KARADI, R/O. NEAR KARLYAMMA TEMPLE, HOSABANDIHARLAPUR-583234, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT KOPPAL IN CRL.MISC. NO.39/2020 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.12.2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5179 RPFC No. 100003 of 2023

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by respondent in Crl.Misc.No.39/2020 challenging the Order dated 10.12.2021, on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Koppal, granting maintenance to the respondent herein.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their rank before the Family Court, Koppal.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized about 21 years back and in their wedlock, a child is born, namely Nagaraj who is pursuing ITI course. It is the allegation of the petitioner that respondent has neglected the petitioner and not leading marital life and accordingly petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.39/2020, seeking maintenance.

¶23

After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection, disputing the marital relationship with the petitioner. It is also the case of the respondent/husband that the son born to the petitioner /wife is not his son and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5179 RPFC No. 100003 of 2023

¶25

The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 10.12.2021, granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/to the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband has preferred this petition.

¶26

Heard Sri. M.M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

Sri. M.M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the respondent herein is not the wife of the petitioner herein and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶28

Per contra, Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the respondent/wife contended that, the respondent herein is the husband of the petitioner herein and in their wedlock a son is born and he is pursuing ITI Course and accordingly sought for dismissal of this petition.

¶29

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that strict proof of marriage is not condition precedent for granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5179 RPFC No. 100003 of 2023

¶31

CHANMUNIYA Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA

¶32

& ANR., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 141, I am of the view that, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein cannot be accepted. Taking into consideration that the award of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is for livelihood of respondent herein and therefore, no interference is called for in this petition.

¶33

Accordingly the Petition is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶35

sac CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Chidanandappa S/O Tippanna Jogi v. Smt. Kanakamma W/O Chidanandappa Maddi Alias Madder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chidanandappa S/O Tippanna Jogi v. Smt. Kanakamma W/O Chidanandappa Maddi Alias Madder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sameera Anjum W/O Mohammed Isaque D/O Mohammed Isaque Vs Mohammed Shafi Y S/O Ansar

Shri. Bhimaraddi S/O. Krishnaraddi Kurtakoti Vs Sri. Mustaq S/O. Rehman Daragad

Sri. Basappa Ramappa Ingalgi Vs Smt. Muttawwa

Smt R Vijalakshmi W/O. R. Sudarshan Reddy Vs Sri S Mohammed Aslam Sab S/O Sargeru Abdul Nabi Sab

Smt Pooja W/O Vishwanath Mahajan Vs Smt Vishwanath S/O Basalingappa Mahajan

Smt. Savitribaisoma Tandel Vs Shri. Sanjay Bhaskar Pokle