Smt Anupama W/O. Kotresh U.M., Vs Sri. Kotresh U.M.

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5307 RPFC No. 100008 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100014 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100008 OF 2024 (-)

¶5

C/W

¶6

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100014 OF 2024

¶7

IN R.P.F.C. NO. 100008 OF 2024 (-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KOTRESH U.M., AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR, R/O. H.NO.106, 2^ND CROSS, VINOBNAGAR, SAGAR, DISTRICT: SHIMOGA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

ANUPAMA W/O. KOTRESH U.M., AGE: ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.32, NEAR SUB-JAIL CROSS, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-30.

¶15

DIVYANSHI D/O. KOTRESH U.M., AGE: ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. H.NO.32, NEAR SUB-JAIL CROSS, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-30. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5307 RPFC No. 100008 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100014 of 2024

¶20

HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.44/2018 AND ETC.

¶21

IN R.P.F.C. NO. 100014 OF 2024 (-)

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SMT. ANUPAMA W/O. KOTRESH U.M., AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO.32, NEAR SUB-JAIL CROSS, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-30.

¶24

KUMARI DIVYANSHI D/O. KOTRESH U.M., AGE: 10 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.32, NEAR SUB-JAIL CROSS, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI-30. PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1 I.E. MOTHER.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI. KOTRESH U.M., AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR, R/O. H.NO.106, 2^ND CROSS, VINOBNAGAR, SAGAR, DISTRICT: SHIMOGA-577201.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI IN CRL.MISC.NO.44/2018 DATED 17.11.2023; TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY MAINTENANCE OF RS.80,000/- P.M. TO THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PETITION CRL.MISC.44/2018 TILL THE RESPONDENT TAKES BACK THE PETITIONERS TO THE MATRIMONIAL HOME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5307 RPFC No. 100008 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100014 of 2024

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

These petitions are arising out of order dated 17.11.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.44/2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short “the Family Court”) challenging the maintenance awarded to the petitioners.

¶37

RPFC No.100008/2024 is filed by the respondenthusband challenging the maintenance awarded by the Family Court and RPFC No.100014/2024 is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage between petitioner No.1-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 13.05.2013 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the respondent is working as a senior lecturer in polytechnic college at Sagar. It is the case of the petitioner No.1-wife that the respondent-husband was not taking care of the needs of the petitioners and the respondent-husband was demanding dowry

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5307 RPFC No. 100008 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100014 of 2024

¶41

and thrown out the petitioners out of the matrimonial home. It is also stated that the father of the respondent-husband has also filed a suit in O.S.No.249/2016 seeking relief of injunction restraining the petitioners from entering the home of the respondent-husband. The respondent-husband has also filed M.C.No.75/2016 seeking dissolution of marriage. Hence, the petitioners left the matrimonial home and started residing separately. After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed objections denying the allegations made by the petitioner No.1-wife against the respondent-husband. It is also contended that on account of incompatibility of relationship between the parties, they are residing separately and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 17.11.2023 directed the respondenthusband to pay ₹10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners and feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed RPFC No.100008/2024 and further being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the petitioners have filed RPFC No.100014/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5307 RPFC No. 100008 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100014 of 2024

¶44

I have heard Smt. Gayatri S.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100008/2024 and Sri.Sunil S Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100014/2024.

¶45

Smt. Gayatri S.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband contended that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is on the higher side and ignoring the fact that the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily and also she was working as a lecturer in a college for sometime and presently she is practicing as an advocate in Hubballi and the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Family Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶46

Per contra, Sri.Sunil S Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has contended that the award of maintenance by the Family Court is on lesser side since the petitioner-wife is residing at Hubballi city.

¶47

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5307 RPFC No. 100008 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100014 of 2024

¶49

husband was solemnized on 13.05.2013 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. On careful perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that M.C.No.75/2016 has been filed by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of marriage, which came to be dismissed on 07.09.2019 and also it is to be noted that the father of the respondent-husband has filed a suit in O.S.No.249/2016 against the petitioner No.1-wife seeking injunctive relief against petitioner No.1 from entering into the matrimonial home. In that view of the matter, it could be safely held that the parties are residing separately. Insofar as quantification of maintenance is concerned, the respondent-husband is working as a senior lecturer in polytechnic college at Sagar and therefore, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraphs 52 to 57 is concerned, I am of the view that the award of maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners is just and proper, which does not call for interference in these petitions. Though the petitioner No.1wife has sought for enhancement of the maintenance, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record the finding recorded by the Family Court is just and proper and I do not

¶50