Shrikant S/O Kanakappa Kurabageri Vs Smt. Renuka Alias Shashikala W/O Shrikant Kurubageri

SHRI. SHRIKANT S/O. KANAKAPPA KURUBAGERI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BSF CONSTABLE, R/AT. 150 BN BSF, FATIKCHARA (TULA BAGAN), VILL-MOHANPUR, POST: U.D.NAGAR, CITY AGARTALA, DIST. WEST TRIPURA, STATE TRIPURA-799211.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE AS AWARDED THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE Ist ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT GADAG IN CRL.MISC.NO.196/2022 BY ALLOWING THE PETITION AS FILED U/S 125 OF CR.P.C. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶23

IN RPFC NO.100019/2024 BETWEEN:

¶24

SHRIKANT S/O. KANAKAPPA KURABAGERI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BSF CONSTABLE R/O.150 BN BSF, FATIKCHRA (TULA BAGAN) VILLAGE: MOHANPUR, POST. U.D.NAGAR, CITY. AGARTALA DISTRICT. WEST TRIPURA, STATE TRIPURA-799211.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶27

SMT. RENUKA ALIAS SHASHIKALA W/O. SHRIKANT KURUBAGERI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK

¶28

KANAKARAJ S/O. SHRIKANT KURUBAGERI, AGE. 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SINCDE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN (MOTHER) RESPONDENT NO.1 R/O. CHIKKAHANDIGOL VILLAGE, TQ & DIST GADAG – 582205.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)

¶31

¶32

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL. MISC. NO.196/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL, PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.196/2022 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

In these petitions, the challenge has been made to order dated 16.12.2023 in Clr.Misc.No.196 of 2022

¶38

on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag allowing the petition in part.

¶39

The petitioners in RPFC No.100094 of 2024 are the petitioners before the Family Court and petitioner in RPFC No.100019 of 2024 is the respondent before the Family Court.

¶40

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.

¶41

It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage

¶42

of petition No.1 with the respondent was solemnized

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶44

on 01.05.2005 at Chikkahandigol Village and in their wedlock, the petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of

¶45

the petitioners that, the respondent-husband was illtreating the petitioner No.1 and has filed M.C No.183 of 2018 seeking dissolution of marriage, and it is also stated that, the petitioners have filed Crl.Mis.No.5 of 2022, seeking setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in M.C No.183 of 2018. It is also stated that respondent-husband is serving in Border Security Force (for short, BSF) and getting monthly salary of Rs.80,000/- per month and apart from the salary income, he is owning agricultural lands at Chikkahandigol village and accordingly, the petitioners stated that, the petitioners are residing separately from the respondent-husband and as such, sought for maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.196 of 2020.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶47

On service of notice the respondent entered

¶48

appearance and filed detailed objections denying the averments made in the petition.

¶49

The respondent admits the decree of divorce passed in M.C.No.183 of 2018. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the petitioners without any cause left the matrimonial home and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶50

In order to establish their case, the petitioner

¶51

No.1 was examined herself as PW1 and produced 08 documents as Ex.P1 to P8 and respondent was examined RW1 and produced 09 documents as Ex.R1 to R9. The Family Court, after considering the material

¶52

on record by order dated 16.12.2023, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶54

husband has filed RPFC No.100019 of 2024 and

¶55

petitioners have filed RPFC No.100094 of 2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance.

¶56

Sri Gouri Shankar Mot learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100094 of 2024 argued

¶57

that the salary of the respondent–husband was Rs.85,000/- per month and same is reflected in Exs.P7 and P8 and accordingly, submitted that the respondent-husband is also owning agricultural lands in village and therefore, submitted that the grant of maintenance by the Family Court requires enhancement in this petition.

¶58

Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, referred to the salary slip produced at Ex.R2 and argued that, the salary of the respondent husband was Rs.36,000/- per month and accordingly, she submitted that, as the salary of the respondent is meager and award of maintenance is on

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶60

the higher side. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that, the respondent had taken retirement from his employment. Accordingly, sought for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by Family Court.

¶61

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 01.05.2005 and in their wedlock the petitioner No.2 was born. As on the date of filing to the petition, the petitioner No.2 was aged about 16 years and represented by natural guardian-Petitioner No.1. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the respondent-husband has filed M.C No.183 of 2008 which came to be decreed exparte and feeling aggrieved by the, the petitioner No.1 (wife) has filed C.Misc.No.5 of 2022, seeking setting aside the ex-parte order passed in M.C No.183 of

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶63

2018 which is pending consideration before the competent Court. It is also to be noted that the respondent-husband was working at BSF and perusal of the Exs.P7 and P8 which has been admitted by the respondent indicate that, the net salary of the respondent was Rs.85,000/- per month. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended by referring to the salary slip produced at Ex.R2 however, the same cannot be accepted by taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph 15 of the impugned order. In that view of the matter, as the respondent-husband also owns agricultural lands, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – wife and child, seeking enhancement of maintenance as the petitioners herein are residing separately from the respondent. Taking into consideration the prevailing

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:495 RPFC No. 100094 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100019 of 2024

¶65

sustenance of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for enhanced maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month and petitioner No.2 is entitle for enhanced maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, till he attains majority. Accordingly, the RPFC No.100094 of 2024 is allowed in part and RPFC No.100019 of 2024 is

¶66

dismissed.

¶67

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶68

SB

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Shrikant S/O Kanakappa Kurabageri v. Smt. Renuka Alias Shashikala W/O Shrikant Kurubageri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant S/O Kanakappa Kurabageri v. Smt. Renuka Alias Shashikala W/O Shrikant Kurubageri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S T Karthik Vs Sujatha S Eeleger

Sri.Ravindra S/O Venkatarmana Bhat Vs Smt.Parvati W/O Prabhakar Raikar

Sri Karthik Patil S/O Late Basavana Gouda Vs Smt Lavanya Alia Ashwini W/O Karthik Patil

Sri Puttaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Marigold Trust Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Shri. Balakrishna Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka