Dismissed¶39

Smt. Gangamma K W/O K Hanumanthappa v. K Hanumanthappa S/O K Bheemappa

Family Court Act – S.19(4)

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2025RPFC/100014/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; wife; senior citizens; second marriage; three children through second marriage; residential house given to wife; retired PSI (2008); Family Court Ballari; Crl. Misc. No.331/2022 dismissed 31.07.2024; revision under Section 19(4) Family Court Act 1984; no interference; petition dismissed; RPFC No.100014 of 2025; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; E.S.Indiresh J.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court rightly dismissed the maintenance petition, having considered that the respondent-husband contracted a second marriage and has three children through the second marriage, and taking into consideration that the respondent has given a residential house to the petitioner. ¶37

Smt. Gangamma K W/O K Hanumanthappa Vs K Hanumanthappa S/O K Bheemappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4982 RPFC No. 100014 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100014 OF 2025 (-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. GANGAMMA K W/O. K. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAMANJINI NAGAR, BELAGAL CROSS, BALLARI-583101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

K. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. K. BHEEMAPPA, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: SUB-INSPECTOR (RTD.) R/O. C/O. SRI. RANGASWAMY NILAYAM, 3^RD CROSS, VADDE NAGAPPA COLONY, CANTONMENT, BELLARI-583101.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 PRAYING FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE AND FOR THE SOME MORE REASONS TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS PETITION, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALALRI IN CRIL. MISC. NO.331/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4982 RPFC No. 100014 of 2025

¶17

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

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner - wife in Criminal Miscellaneous No.331/2022, challenging the order dated 31.07.2024 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), dismissing the petition.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶21

referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that, the marriage between the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 08.06.1970 and in their wedlock three children were born. It is also stated in the petition that, the respondent has contracted with second marriage with one Laxmi and thereafter, the respondent was ill-treating the petitioner and the petitioner was thrown out from the matrimonial home. It is stated in the petition that, the respondent was not taking care of needs of the petitioner,

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4982 RPFC No. 100014 of 2025

¶24

hence, the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.331/2022, seeking maintenance.

¶25

After service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objection. It is the specific case of the respondent – husband that, he is a retired government servant and also having three children

¶26

in the wedlock with Smt. Laxmi. It is the specific contention of the respondent that, the petitioner has filed petition after 38 years from the date of marriage and therefore, the petition does not survive for consideration. It is also stated that, the respondent – husband had purchased two sites in the name of petitioner – wife and also the agricultural land in Sy.No.52 and 55/1 of Thimmalapura village of Kurgod – Ballari District and same is stands in the name of the petitioner. Hence, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 31.07.2024 dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner – wife has preferred this petition.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4982 RPFC No. 100014 of 2025

¶30

I have heard Sri. Sanjay Chanal, learned

¶31

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A. Veeranna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶32

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the respondent is retired PSI during 2008 and has not taken care of needs of the petitioner and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, the petitioner is residing with their three sons who are government servants and also businessman. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that, the respondent has given two sites and a residential house to the petitioner herein and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. The petitioner has married respondent – husband on

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4982 RPFC No. 100014 of 2025

¶36

08.06.1970 and in their wedlock three sons were born.

¶37

The avocation of the three sons is set out at paragraph No.18 of the impugned order. The Family Court after considering the material on record that the respondent – husband has contracted second marriage and having three children through second marriage and also taking into consideration that the respondent has given a residential house to the petitioner, rightly dismissed the petition.

¶38

Taking into consideration the fact that, age of the respondent is 75 years and on the other hand the age of the petitioner is 70 years and as she is residing with her children and therefore, no interference is called for in this petition.

¶39

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶41

SMM CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

Smt. Gangamma K W/O K Hanumanthappa v. K Hanumanthappa S/O K Bheemappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gangamma K W/O K Hanumanthappa v. K Hanumanthappa S/O K Bheemappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriramulu (Sunil) S/O Natraj Vs Smt. Manjula (Dhanalakshmi)

Smt. Kavita W/O Basavaraj Didgi Vs Sri. Basavaraj S/O Narappa Didgi

Smt. Jyoti W/O Yamanur Bhovi Vs Shri. Yamanur S/O Mahadevappa Bhovi

Sushmitha W/O Anandagouda Naikanur Vs Anandgouda S/O Veeranagouda Naikanur

Smt Vaishali Vs Shri Chandrakant Bhima Gurav

Smt. Deepa W/O. Vinod Nayak Vs Shri. Vinod S/O. Shivaji Nayak