Dismissed¶60

Sri. Chandrashekhara H v. Smt. Kurubara Shirisha W/O Chandrashekhara H

Maintenance – Revision under S.19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2025RPFC/100046/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; RPFC 100102/2024 c/w RPFC 100046/2024; decided 29-01-2025 by E.S.Indiresh J.; maintenance enhancement and setting aside cross-revisions under Sec.19(4) Family Court Act 1984 against Ballari Family Court order dt.08.12.2023 in Crl.Misc.237/2022; Rs.10,000/- p.m. maintenance upheld; husband's Rs.50,000/- p.m. salary undisputed; wife's teaching avocation unproved; parties residing separately (husband's M.C.5858/2021 under S.9 Hindu Marriage Act); both petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; both revision petitions dismissed and the Family Court's order awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner-wife stands undisturbed. ¶60

Sri. Chandrashekhara H Vs Smt. Kurubara Shirisha… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100102 OF 2024 (-)

¶8

C/W

¶9

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100046 OF 2024

¶10

IN REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100102 OF 2024

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

MANJANNA E

¶13

Digitally signed byMANJANNA E Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.02.01 11:43:03+0530

¶14

SMT KURUBARA SHIRISHA W/O CHANDRASHEKARA H, D/O LATE K BANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. NO. 23/390, KURUBARA STREET, GUNTAKAL TALUK, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN HER SISTER’S HOUSE SMT. K LAKSHMI, WARD NO. 17, BISILAHALLI TOWN, PIN 583102

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI CHANDRASHEKHARA H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, JOHNSON CONTROLS COMPANY,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶20

BENGALURU,

¶21

R/O. NO. 126, 4^TH ALLOTMENT, 1^ST A MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, OPP. SHELL PETROL BUNK ROADK, KOGILUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2023, MADE IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 237/2022, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT ON THE HIGHER SIDE, TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

IN REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100046 OF 2024

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. CHANDRASHEKHARA H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, JOHNSON CONTROLS COMPANY, BENGALURU, R/O. NO 126, 4^TH ALLOTMENT, 1^ST A MAIN , 1^ST CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, OPP. SHELL PETROL BUNK ROAD, KOGILUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANK,

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶29

BENGALURU-560064.

¶30

…PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

SMT. KURUBARA SHIRISHA W/O CHANDRASHEKHARA H, D/O LATE K BANDAIAH, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O NO. 23/390, KURUBARA STREET, GUNTAKAL TALUK, AANTHAPR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN HER SISTER’S HOUSE SMT. K LAKSHMI W/O K HOSAGEERAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 93 WARD NO. 17, BISILAHALLI TOWN, BALLARI-583103

¶34

…RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SRI. B. CHIDANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶36

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BALLARI IN CRL. MISC. NO.237/2022 IN THE INTEREST O JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶43

Challenging the order dated 08.12.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.237/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short “the Family Court”) the petitioner-wife in Crl.Misc.No.237/2022 filed RPFC No.100102/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance and the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.237/2022 filed RPFC No.100046/2024 granting maintenance of ₹10,000/- to the petitioner-wife.

¶44

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶45

referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.

¶46

It is the case of the petitioner-wife before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 12.06.2020 at Ballari and after marriage, the respondent and his family members have demanded additional dowry and they started subjecting the petitioner to ill-treat by stating that she is not beautiful enough for respondent-husband to lead marital life and as such, having

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶48

not tolerated the inhuman treatment by the respondenthusband and his family members, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent-husband filed M.C.No.5858/2021 at Family Court, Bengaluru seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is also stated in the petition that since the petitioner-wife is residing with her parents, she filed Crl.Misc.No.237/2022 seeking maintenance.

¶49

On service of notice the respondent-husband entered appearance and denied the allegation made against him with regard to claiming of additional dowry. It is also the case of the respondent-husband that he filed M.C.No.5858/2021 before the Family Court, Bengaluru seeking restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly, pleaded in the statement of objections that he is always ready and willing to take the petitioner-wife to matrimonial home, however, the petitioner-wife is not co-operating for the same. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 08.12.2023, awarded the monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- to the petitioner-wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-wife filed RPFC No.100102/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance and the respondent-husband filed

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶51

RPFC No.100046/2024 challenging the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

¶52

I have heard Sri.B Chidanand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (wife) in RPFC No.100102/2024 and Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband) in RPFC No.100046/2024.

¶53

Sri. S. C. Bhuti, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, submitted that the grant of monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- to the petitioner-wife without considering the factual aspects on record by the Family Court is on the higher side as the petitioner-wife is a B.Sc., graduate, working as a teacher in a private school and she is capable of earning her livelihood. Therefore, the grant of monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- to the petitioner-wife requires to be interfered with in this petition.

¶54

Per contra, Sri. B. Chidanand, learned counsel

¶55

appearing for the petitioner-wife, submitted that the respondent-husband is working in a private firm at Bengaluru and earning more than ₹50,000/- per month as a salary and therefore, taking into account the status of the parties, the

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶57

grant of maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month by the Family Court is meager, which requires to be enhanced. Accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶58

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.06.2020 at Ballari and perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the respondent-husband has filed M.C.No.5858/2021 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which makes it clear that the parties are residing separately. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-husband is working in a private firm having salary of ₹50,000/- per month, which has not been disputed and on the other hand, as Sri. S.C.Bhuti, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband contends that the petitioner-wife is a B.Sc., graduate working as teacher in a private school, however no acceptable evidence has been adduced before the Family Court to substantiate the avocation of the petitioner-wife and in that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner-wife is residing in her sister’s house at Ballari, grant of monthly maintenance of

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1731 RPFC No. 100102 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100046 of 2024

¶60

₹10,000/- by the Family Court is just and proper and does not require interference by this court. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.

¶61

In view of disposal of both the petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

¶62

consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶63

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶64

YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri. Chandrashekhara H v. Smt. Kurubara Shirisha W/O Chandrashekhara H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekhara H v. Smt. Kurubara Shirisha W/O Chandrashekhara H

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

K Nagaraj Vs Kondapura Gollara Thippeswamy

Shri. Malatesh S/O. Adiveppa Karjjari Alias Vaddar Vs Shri. Hanumantappa S/O Hanumappa Kerudi

Shashikant Bhimappa Yankanchi Vs Jyoti W/O Shashikant Yankanchi

Shrikant S/O. Ramu Nimbalkar, Vs Sanjeev S/O. Ganapati Nimbalkar

Shri.Sameer S/O. Mehaboob Bagewadi Vs Smt.Sabanigar D/O. Dastgir Ghori

Shri.Sameer S/O Mehaboob Bagewadi Vs Smt.Sabanigar D/O Dastgir Ghori