Dismissed¶50

Sri Rajashekhar Basanagouda Kusalapur v. Smt Rashmi W/O Rajashekhar Kusalapur

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2025RPFC/100116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance revision petition dismissed; Family Court Dharwad award upheld without interference. Search terms: RPFC No. 100116 of 2024; Crl.Misc.No.199/2022; Principal Judge Family Court Dharwad; Sec.19(4) Family Court Act 1984; monthly maintenance Rs.10,000/- wife; Rs.5,000/- minor child; KSRTC driver; gross salary Rs.22,961/- December 2022 pay-slip; marriage 03.05.2013; suspicion of fidelity; left matrimonial home; dowry demand allegation; respondents served and unrepresented; Dharwad Bench; Justice E.S. Indiresh; decided 03.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

It is not in dispute that the marriage of petitioner No.1 (wife) with the respondent (husband) was solemnized on 03.05.2013 and petitioner No.2 (child) was born in their wedlock. ¶44

Sri Rajashekhar Basanagouda Kusalapur Vs Smt Rashmi W/O Rajashekhar Kusalapur — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- awarded to petitioner No.1 (wife) and Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.2 (minor child) by the Family Court, Dharwad is excessive in view of the petitioner-husband's gross salary of Rs.22,961/- per month (December 2022 pay-slip) and calls for interference in this revision petition.

¶43

Court's answer

It is not in dispute that the marriage of petitioner No.1 (wife) with the respondent (husband) was solemnized on 03.05.2013 and petitioner No.2 (child) was born in their wedlock.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that the petitioner (husband) suspected the fidelity of petitioner No.1, as a result of which she left the matrimonial home along with the child, and that the petitioner works as a driver in KSRTC.

¶44

Key takeaways

Considering that petitioner No.1 has to take care of her basic necessities as well as those of petitioner No.2 (child), the award of maintenance by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference in this petition.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (E.S. Indiresh, J.), Oral Order dated 03.02.2025 — RPFC No. 100116 of 2024 filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 by the husband challenging the Family Court, Dharwad's order dated 17.05.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.199/2022, which allowed the maintenance petition in part, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife (petitioner No.1) and Rs.5,000/- to the minor son (petitioner No.2). Counsel for the husband contended the award was excessive as the husband's gross salary per the December 2022 pay-slip was Rs.22,961/- per month. The court noted the marriage of 03.05.2013, the birth of the child, that the husband had suspected the wife's fidelity leading her to leave the matrimonial home with the child, and his employment as a KSRTC driver, and held the award just and proper. Revision petition dismissed; respondents served and unrepresented.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2083 RPFC No. 100116 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100116 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. BASANAGOUDA KUSALAPUR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC DRIVER, R/O. MUGABASAVA, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. GIRISH S HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. RASHMI W/O RAJASHEKHAR KUSALAPUR AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. CHANNAMALLALPPA SIDDAPPA MORAB SUNAGAR ONI, NARENDRA, TQ.DIST. DHARWAD.

¶15

V N BADIGER

¶16

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.05 15:20:33 +0530

¶17

PRAJVAL S/O RAJASHEKHAR KUSALAPUR AGE. 6 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. C/O. CHANNAMALLALPPA SIDDAPPA MORAB SUNAGAR ONI, NARENDRA, TQ.DIST. DHARWAD. (SINCE MINOR R/BY NATURAL MOTHER R NO.1)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN THE CRL.MISC.NO.199/2022 AND PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT DHARWAD, DATED 17.05.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2083 RPFC No. 100116 of 2024

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the

¶28

order dated 17.05.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.199/2022 on the

¶29

file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad¹ granting maintenance to the petitioner therein.

¶30

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

¶31

It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the petitioner No.1 married the respondent on 03.05.2013 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent and his family members have ill-treated the petitioners and were also made demand for dowry and as such the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and now they are residing in the parents house. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners herein have no

¶32

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2083 RPFC No. 100116 of 2024

¶34

means for livelihood and as such they have filed Crl.Misc.No.199/2022 seeking maintenance.

¶35

After service of notice, the respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed objection refuting the contentions raised by the petitioners with regard to the allegations made therein and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 17.05.2024, allowed the petition in part and as such granted monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶38

The respondent though served, remained

¶39

absent.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2083 RPFC No. 100116 of 2024

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶43

contended that the gross salary of the petitioner herein as per December 2022 pay-slip is Rs.22,961/- per month and therefore award of maintenance is on the higher side, which requires to be interfered with in this petition.

¶44

Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 03.05.2013 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein has suspected the fidelity of petitioner No.1 and as such the petition No.1 along with the child left the matrimonial home. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein is working as driver in KSRTC.

¶45