Smt. Chandrakala W/O Devanna Karli Vs Devanna Y Karli

DEVANNA Y. KARLI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. OFFICE ADDRESS: TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, GOVT. COCOON MARKET CTRI, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BM ROAD RAMANAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR & SMT. KAVYA C. SHETTAR, ADVOCATES)

¶18

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.279/2018 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶19

IN RPFC NO.100105 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN:

¶20

DEVANNA Y. KARLI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4289 RPFC No. 100078 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100105 of 2022

¶22

R/O. GOVERNMENT COCCON MARKET, CTRI CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BM ROAD, RAMANAGAR, BENGALURU-562 108.

¶23

…PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR & SMT. KAVYA C. SHETTAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

¶25

CHANDRAKALA W/O. DEVANNA KARLI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER, R/O. PLOT NO.9, BASAVA LAYOUT, NAVANAGAR, NEAR SAI MANDIR , HUBBALLI-580020, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶26

PAVITRA D/O. DEVANNA KARLI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, NOW R/O. PLOT NO.9, BASAVA LAYOUT, NAVANAGAR, NEAR SAI MANDIR , HUBBALLI-580020, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶27

BHAVANA @ DEEPA D/O. DEVANNA KARLI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PLOT NO.9, BASAVA LAYOUT, NAVANAGAR, NEAR SAI MANDIR , HUBBALLI-580020, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶28

LIPIKA D/O. DEVANNA KARLI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND, CHANDRAKALA W/O. DEVANNA KARLI, R/O. PLOT NO.9, BASAVA LAYOUT, NAVANAGAR, NEAR SAI MANDIR , HUBBALLI-580020, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT TO ALLOW THE PETITION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO. 279/2018 DATED 01.02.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI.

¶32

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

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4289 RPFC No. 100078 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100105 of 2022

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

RPFC No.100078/2022 is filed by the petitioner No.1 in Crl.Misc.No.279/2018 challenging the order dated 01.02.2022 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi¹ dismissing the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned.

¶37

RPFC No.100105/2022 is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.279/2018 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi seeking setting aside the order dated 01.02.2022.

¶38

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

¶39

It is the case of the petitioners before the

¶40

Family Court that the marriage between petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized during 1995 at Tirupati and in their wedlock three children were born

¶41

namely petitioners No.2 to 4. It is stated in the petition

¶42

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4289 RPFC No. 100078 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100105 of 2022

¶44

that, the respondent was working as a Technical Assistant at Government Cocoon (Silk) Market, Central Silk Board, Ramanagara and also working at various places at Mehabbobnagar, Dharmavaram and such other places in Andhra Pradesh and was not looking after the needs of petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.279/2018 on the ground that the respondent is having sufficient means, however neglected the petitioners herein and they were not able to get the livelihood and their educational prospects.

¶45

After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection contending that the petitioner No.1 herself deserted the respondent and not responded to lead happy marital life. It is also stated that the amount claimed by the petitioners is on higher side and accordingly it is contended that the petition requires to be dismissed by the Family Court.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4289 RPFC No. 100078 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100105 of 2022

¶47

The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 01.02.2022 dismissed the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, however, directed the respondent – husband to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month each to petitioners No.2 to 4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner No.1 has preferred RPFC 100078/2022, whereas, the respondent –

¶48

husband has preferred RPFC No.100105/2022.

¶49

I have heard Sri.Roshan Saheb Chabbi, learned

¶50

counsel appearing for the petitioner - wife and Smt.Kavya C Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - husband.

¶51

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Family Court has erred in not considering the fact that the respondent – husband himself has left the matrimonial home and therefore the conclusion arrived by the Family Court that petitioner No.1 was not ready to lead conjugal life with the respondent-

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4289 RPFC No. 100078 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100105 of 2022

¶53

husband is incorrect and accordingly, sought for

¶54

interference of this Court.

¶55

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – husband sought to justify the impugned order insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned and submitted that as there is no cause for petitioner No.1 – wife to lead the conjugal life with respondent – husband and therefore, the Family Court has rightly dismissed the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned. It is also contended that, maintenance awarded insofar as the children is on higher side.

¶56

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized during 1995 and in their wedlock three children were born namely petitioners No.2 to 4. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the respondent – husband was working at various

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4289 RPFC No. 100078 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100105 of 2022

¶58

places and petitioners were residing in the house belonging to respondent – husband.

¶59

However, taking into consideration the age of petitioner No.1 is concerned as well as she has to take care of three grown up daughters, and in that view of the matter, it is a fit case to remand the case to the Family Court for fresh consideration insofar as granting maintenance to petitioner No.1 is concerned, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it is held that maintenance of wife is for subsistence and cannot be deprived of the same. It is also made clear that, the award of maintenance to children (petitioner Nos.2 to 4) is just and proper.

¶60

In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100078/2022. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4289 RPFC No. 100078 of 2022 C/W RPFC No. 100105 of 2022

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) RPFC No.100078/2022 is allowed.

¶64

(ii) RPFC No.100105/2022 is dismissed.

¶65

(iii) Crl.Misc.No.279/2018 is remitted to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi only in insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned for fresh disposal.

¶66

(iv) The Family Court shall provide fair opportunity to both the parties and to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the declaration of law made by this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to payment of maintenance to the housewife.

¶67

(v) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, as the parties are represented through learned counsels, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 26.03.2025 at 11.00

¶68