Smt. Pushpa W/O Manjumnath Gulannavar Vs Sri. Manjunath S/O Yelukoteppa Gulannavar

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2528 RPFC No. 100044 of 2023

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100044 OF 2023 (-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUSHPA W/O. MANJUMNATH GULANNAVAR, AGE: 34 YEARS , OCC: NIL. R/O. SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, HAVERI , NOW AT C/O.VEERAPPA S/O.BASAPPA BADDI BEHIND GUTTEMMA TEMPLE, DEVAGERI, TQ. AND DIST HAVERI -581110.

¶9

KUM. SACHITH S/O.MANJUNATH GULANNAVAR AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. R/O. SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, HAVERI, NOW AT C/O.VEERAPPA S/O.BASAPPA BADDI BEHIND GUTTEMMA TEMPLE ,DEVAGERI, TQ AND DIST HAVERI-581110.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

V N BADIGER

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.10 16:46:37 +0530

¶13

(BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. YELUKOTEPPA GULANNAVAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O. SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, HAVERI, NOW AT J.P.MORGAN CHESS AND COM PRESTIGE TECH PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, NEAR MARATHA HALLI, BENGALURU-560 087.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2528 RPFC No. 100044 of 2023

¶19

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND ENHANCE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING ORDER DATED 14.10.222 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, HAVERI IN CRIM. MISC. 20/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.20 of 2022, challenging the order dated 14.10.2023 on the file of Family Court, Bagalkote.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties in

¶25

this petition are referred to their status and ranking before the Family Court.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage between petitioner No.1 with respondent was solemnized on 11.04.2004 at Haveri and in their

¶27

wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent and his family members made huge demand for dowry after the

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2528 RPFC No. 100044 of 2023

¶29

marriage and also assaulted the petitioner No.1 and as such, the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home along with the child and residing with her parents. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.20 of 2022 seeking maintenance.

¶30

After service of notice respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objection denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the specific case of the respondent that, the respondent took the petitioner-wife to the Psychiatrist and Doctor has advised for regular treatment, however, same was refused by the petitioner-wife and also the petitionerwife has filed complaint against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also stated that petitioner No.1 is a graduate in M.A., B.Ed and is capable of earning and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2528 RPFC No. 100044 of 2023

¶33

The Family court, after considering the

¶34

material on record by its order dated 14.10.2022 dismissed the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2-Child. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

¶35

I have heard Sri. Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the respondent.

¶37

Sri. Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the Family Court without considering the evidence of PW1, and has arrived at a conclusion that, the petitioner No.1 has left the matrimonial home without any cause and the said finding recorded by Family Court is

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2528 RPFC No. 100044 of 2023

¶39

contrary to law. Accordingly, he sought for

¶40

interference of this Court.

¶41

Per contra, Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, the petitioner No.1-wife is capable of earning and also left the matrimonial without any cause and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. Further, it is contended that the respondent herein has filed MC No.48 of 2023 before the competent Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage and said petition is decreed and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 11.04.2015 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. The petitionerwife has filed complaint against the respondent under

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2528 RPFC No. 100044 of 2023

¶45

Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 to Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶46

In that view of the matter, it is clear that,

¶47

the parties are residing separately and therefore, reasons assigned by the Family court, rejecting the petition insofar as the petitioner No.1 is contrary to law since, the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abilasha vs.

¶48

Prakash , reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355, wherein, the purpose of the Section 125 of Cr.P.C is to provide immediate relief to the applicants and granting maintenance is a measure of social justice to prevent wife and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. In that view of the matter, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Hence, I pass the following:

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2528 RPFC No. 100044 of 2023

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The Petition is allowed insofar as petitioner

¶52

No.1 is concerned.

¶53

ii) Order dated 14.10.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.20 of 2022 Family Court, Haveri is set aside in respect of petitioner No.1 is concerned and matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration and the Family Court is directed disposed of the same at the earliest. Liberty is reserved to the parties to adduce evidence, if any, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶54

iii) Since the parties are represented through their counsel, therefore the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 15.03.2025 at 11 am.

¶55