Smt. Ganga Alias Nirmala W/O Ravikumar Shahapur Vs Ravikumar S/O Yamanoorappa Shahapur

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4752 RPFC No. 100052 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100052 OF 2022 (-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. GANGA @ NIRMALA W/O. RAVIKUMAR SHAHAPUR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. INDRAKEELANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶7

KUMARI VANDANA D/O. RAVIKUMAR SHAHAPUR, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. INDRAKEELANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶8

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. GANGA @ NIRMALA,

¶9

KUMAR VARUN S. S/O. RAVIKUMAR SHAHAPUR, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. INDRAKEELANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶12

(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

RAVIKUMAR S/O. YAMANOORAPPA SHAHAPUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SDA IN TALUKA PANCHAYATH, KOPPAL, R/O. INDRAKEELANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE MAINTENANCE TO RS.10,000/- EACH TO THE PETITIONERS BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.344/2020 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL ALONG WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4752 RPFC No. 100052 of 2022

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of maintenance, challenging the Order dated 15.11.2021 in Cri. Misc. No.344/2020 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Koppal, granting maintenance to petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

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

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that, marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent – husband was solemnized on 25.03.2000 and in their wedlock, two children were born. It is to be noted that there was a family rift between the petitioner No.1 and respondent and accordingly, it is stated that the respondent was addicted to bad vices. It is also stated that petitioner No.1 has left matrimonial home as the respondent was pestering the petitioner No.1 to part with her salary and as such, the petitioner No.1 along with minor children, filed Crl.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4752 RPFC No. 100052 of 2022

¶28

Misc.No.344/2020, seeking maintenance. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the allegations made against the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that on account of conduct of petitioner No.1, the respondent is facing humiliation and insult in the society. It is also stated that, the respondent is not in a position to give separate maintenance to the petitioner and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 15.11.2021, dismissed the petition in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned and granted maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to petitioner No.2 and Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the maintenance granted by the Family Court, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

¶30

I have heard Sri. P.G. Mogali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. B.C. Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶31

Sri. P.G. Mogali, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that award of maintenance by the Family Court is

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4752 RPFC No. 100052 of 2022

¶34

inadequate and it requires to be enhanced by taking into account the educational prospects of the children.

¶35

Per contra, Sri. B.C. Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel sought to justify the impugned order.

¶36

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The Family Court, having taken note of the fact that petitioner No.1 was working as a teacher in a Government School, dismissed the petition as against petitioner No.1. However, taking into consideration the educational prospects, has awarded maintenance to petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

¶37

It is also forthcoming from the cause-title in the impugned order that petitioner No.3 – Kumar Varun has attained majority and therefore, no interference is called for in so far as petitioner No.3 is concerned. In so far as petitioner No.2 - Kumari Vandana, i.e., daughter is concerned, I am of

¶38

the view that award of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month is inadequate and accordingly, the same has to be enhanced to

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4752 RPFC No. 100052 of 2022

¶40

Rs.10,000/- per month since petitioner No.2 has to pursue her educational prospects.

¶41

In that view of the matter, petition is allowed in part and respondent – husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 and no interference is called for in so far as rejection of maintenance to petitioner No.1 and grant of maintenance to petitioner No.3 is concerned.

¶42

In all other aspects, the Order of the Family Court stands intact. The Order dated 15.11.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.344/2020, on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Koppal, shall stand modified accordingly.

¶43

With the above observation, the Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶45

sac CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt. Ganga Alias Nirmala W/O Ravikumar Shahapur v. Ravikumar S/O Yamanoorappa Shahapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ganga Alias Nirmala W/O Ravikumar Shahapur v. Ravikumar S/O Yamanoorappa Shahapur

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

Pundalikappa Vs Smt Chandravva

Shivarudragouda Vs Virupaxgouda @ Virupanagouda

Suchitra W/O Dattatreya Suryavamshi Vs Smt. Sunita W/O Sudhir Shindhe

Shri Dinesh S/O Sukharaj Kothari Vs Smt Sitabi W/O Ramachandra Tikotekar

Hanamavva W/O. Ningappa Warad Vs Basappa S/O. Balappa Warad

Shri Mahesh Shantaram Somaijiche Vs Smt. Saroja W/O Mahesh Somajiche