Sri. Katta Ashwini Kumar S/O Katta Srinivas Vs Smt. Katta Srilakshmi W/O Sri Katta Ashwin Kumar

MASTER SUDHANWA S/O. KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR, AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: MINOR, SINCE THE PETITIONER NO 2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. KATTA SRILAKSHMI W/O. SRI KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR D/O. ANANTHAIAH SHEETY, BOTH ARE R/O PLOT NO. 6, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, S. N. PETH, BALLARI TQ: DIST: BALLARI.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE AND SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATES)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI. KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR S/O. KATTA SRINIVAS, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: HOUSE NO. 4-182

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶21

RAGHAVENDRA COLON, MAKTAL, MEHABOOB NAGAR DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE & SRI. ANNESAHEB SHALAGAR ADV’S)

¶24

¶25

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT- BALLARI IN CRIL. MISC. NO.131/2020 THEREBY AWARDING MEAGER MAINTENANCE OF RS.5000/- TO PETITIONER NO. 1 AND 10,000/- TO PETITIONER NO. 2 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

IN RPFC NO.100013/2023 BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. KATTA ASHWINI KUMAR S/O. KATTA SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOUSE NO. 4-182, RAGHAVENDA COLONY, MAKTAL MEHABOOB NAGAR, DIST:TELANGAANA - 509208

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶31

AND:

¶32

SMT. KATTA SRILAKSHMI W/O. SRI KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC; HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PLOT NO 6, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, S. N. PET, BALLARI – 583101.

¶33

MINOR MASTER SUDHANWA S/O. SRI. KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR, AGE: 7 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O: PLOT NO. 6 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, S. N. PET, BALLARI - 583101.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶36

¶37

RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.11.2022, PASSED IN CRL. MISC.NO.131/2020, BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI, IN ALLOWING THE MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN, IN PART DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.15,000/- TO THE RESPONDENTS (5,000/- TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 10,000/- RESPONDENT NO.2), IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶38

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶40

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

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

These petitions are filed by the parties challenging the order dated 23.11.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.131/2020 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short “the Family Court”), awarding maintenance of ₹5,000/- in favour of petitioner No.1-wife and ₹10,000/- in favour of petitioner No.2child. RPFC No.100116/2023 is filed by the wife and child against the respondent-husband and RPFC No.100013/2023 is filed by the husband against the wife and child.

¶43

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶44

referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.

¶45

It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between petitioner No.1 (wife) and the respondent (husband) was solemnized on 09.03.2014 at Matkal, Mehaboob Nagar District of Telangana State. It is stated that the parents of the petitioner No.1 had given cash and articles as dowry to the respondent-husband. It is also stated that, in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born on 25.01.2015 and thereafter it is alleged by the petitioner No.1 that the respondent-husband and his parents were repeatedly

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶47

ill-treating the petitioners and also not providing basic necessities as food and shelter to the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and were residing at the parents’ house of petitioner No.1. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.131/2021 against the respondent-husband seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”)

¶48

3.1. On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and has filed detailed objection admitting the relationship between the parties. It is the specific contention of the respondent-husband that the entire marriage expenses were borne by the family of the respondent-husband and further, the attitude of petitioner No.1 was not good in the matrimonial house and as such, she has left the matrimonial home without any cause and accordingly, the respondenthusband has sought for dismissal of the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also stated in the objection that the respondent-husband was working as a car driver at Raichur and earning ₹8,000/- per month and as such, the respondent has took up a contention that since the petitioner No.1 is working

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶50

as a lecturer in an educational institution and therefore, she is not entitled for the maintenance from the respondent.

¶51

3.2. In order to establish their case, petitioner No.1-wife was examined as PW1 and got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The respondent was examined as RW1 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. Further, two documents as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were also marked by the Family Court by concurrence. The Family Court, after consideration of material on record, by its order dated 23.11.2022 allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners and as such directed the respondent-husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/to petitioner No.1-wife and ₹10,000/- to petitioner No.2-child Feeling aggrieved by the same, the husband has preferred RPFC No.100013/2023 and the wife and child have filed RPFC No.100116/2023.

¶52

I have heard Sri. Neelendra Gunde, learned counsel appearing for petitioners/wife and child and Smt. Veena Hegade, learned counsel appearing for respondent-husband.

¶53

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.131/2020 that the

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶55

Family Court has committed an error in granting a meager maintenance to the petitioners despite the fact the respondent is owning a fertilizer shop and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of maintenance.

¶56

Per contra, Smt. Veena Hegade, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband submitted that the respondent-husband has no objection insofar as maintenance granted in favour of petitioner No.2 (child), however the maintenance of ₹5,000/awarded in favour petitioner No.1(wife) is incorrect on the ground that the petitioner No.1 was working as lecturer in an educational institution. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondenthusband that both the petitioner No.1-wife and respondenthusband are MCA graduates and therefore as petitioner No.1wife is also earning, and further as there is no acceptable evidence to award maintenance to petitioner No.1. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the impugned order passed by the Family Court insofar as granting maintenance to petitioner No.1.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 09.03.2014 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born on 25.01.2015. The perusal of the finding recorded by the Court below would indicate that the relationship between the parties was strained and the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial home and residing in the house of her parents along with petitioner No.2-child. It is the case of the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1-was working as a lecturer in educational institution and therefore, there is no need for awarding maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife. In this regard, on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that no documents have been produced by the respondent-husband to substantiate as to the petitioner No.1 is working in educational institution, so also earning a handful salary.

¶59

On the other hand, perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the petitioner No.1 is not working in M/s. Manavi Pattan Souhard Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamith and therefore, I am of the view that the finding

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:339 RPFC No. 100116 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023

¶61

recorded by the Family Court is just and proper and the award of maintenance by the Family Court to the petitioner No.1 is just and proper and there is no perversity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court is hereby confirmed taking into consideration the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and another v. Khobbanna reported in AIR 2017 SC 1174 wherein it is held that merely the wife is capable of earning does not sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. In that view of the matter, as the petitioners have also not made out a case of enhancement of maintenance and taking into consideration the respondent-husband is working as a driver at Hyderabad, I do not find any merit in both the petitions. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.

¶62

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶63

YAN

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri. Katta Ashwini Kumar S/O Katta Srinivas v. Smt. Katta Srilakshmi W/O Sri Katta Ashwin Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Katta Ashwini Kumar S/O Katta Srinivas v. Smt. Katta Srilakshmi W/O Sri Katta Ashwin Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Alias Sachin Ningappa Jayakar Vs Smt Hemalata W/O Babu Alias Sachin Jayakar

Smt Gouramma W/O Shivanand Heggeri Vs Shri Shivanand S/O Malleshappa Heggeri

Sri Raju S/O Krishna Nilajkar Vs Sdmt Pooja W/O Raju Nilajkar

Ravi S/O Shivaputrappa Pujar Vs Smt. Saroja W/O Ravi Pujar

Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt Reptd by Its Vs Sri Uttaradi Mutt

Vijay Annappa Dodamani Vs Vasant Bharamanna Rajesh