Dismissed¶30

Vijayakumar S/O Kanakappa Chalavadi v. Smt. Padmavati W/O Vijayakumar Chalavadi

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2025RPFC/100020/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RPFC No.100020/2023, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (E.S.Indiresh J., 22.03.2025) — maintenance Rs. 6,000/- p.m. — ex parte order upheld — notice served, husband deliberately absent — Section 19(4) Family Court Act — wife's entitlement to maintenance despite leaving matrimonial home — Crl.Misc.No.228/2021, Gangavathi — revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Notice was duly served on the respondent-husband and he deliberately refused to appear before the Trial Court; the contention that a fair opportunity was denied to him cannot be accepted, since the opportunity given was denied by the respondent-husband himself. ¶28

Vijayakumar S/O Kanakappa Chalavadi Vs Smt. Padmavati W/O Vijayakumar Chalavadi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023

¶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. 100020 OF 2023 (-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. KANAKAPPA CHALAVADI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. MURADI VILLAGE, TQ: YELABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583237.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR CHALAVADI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MURADI VILLAGE, TQ: YELABURGA DIST: KOPPAL-583237, NOW AT C/O. NAGAPPA CHALAVADI, WARD NO.1 CHALAVADI STREET, NEAR DURUGAMMA TEMPLE, NAVALI VILLAGE, TQ: KANAKAGIRI-583229.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

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

¶12

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶13

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GANGAVATI IN CRL.MISC. NO.228/2021 DATED 22.04.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶14

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.228/2021 challenging the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi (for short “the Trial Court”) granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife.

¶19

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

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the marriage between petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 23.05.2010 at Kanakagiri. It is also stated that the respondent-husband and his parents were illtreating the petitioner-wife and were pressurizing the petitioner-wife to bring additional dowry and as such, the petitioner-wife was not happy in the matrimonial home. It is also contended by the petitioner-wife that she gave birth to a female child on 07.10.2016 and since the respondenthusband neglected the petitioner-wife, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023

¶22

parents. Hence, the petitioner-wife filed

¶23

Crl.Misc.No.228/2021 seeking maintenance.

¶24

3.1. The respondent-husband through served with notice, remained unrepresented before the Trial Court and was placed ex parte .

¶25

3.2. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 22.04.2022 granted monthly maintenance of ₹6,000/- to the petitioner-wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has presented this petition.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the award made by the Trial Court is on the higher side and as the petitioner-wife herself has left the matrimonial home without any cause, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is also stated that a fair opportunity was not extended to the respondent-husband and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5303 RPFC No. 100020 of 2023

¶28

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court, it would indicate that the marriage between petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 23.05.2010 and in their wedlock a daughter was born. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that ex parte order has been passed is concerned, careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that notice has been served on the respondent-husband, however he deliberately refused to appear before the Trial Court and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband cannot be accepted since opportunity given to the respondent-husband has been denied by the respondent-husband. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner-wife is residing at Kanakagiri and as she has to take care of her livelihood and her child, I am of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and same does not call for

¶29