(BY SRI. K.V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) v. R1 AND R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. When it is not in dispute that the respondents are wife and minor son of the petitioner, a duty is cast upon the petitioner/husband to maintain his wife and children. On perusal of Ex.P.3, it shows that the petitioner/husband is the owner of an…
Judgment
SRI. RAJU M.S., S/O M.S. SANNA HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND BUS DRIVER, R/AT MALLESHWARA VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548. (BY SRI. K.V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
#1. SMT. ARCHANA, W/O RAJU M.S., D/O HUCHCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
#2. ADARSH R., S/O RAJU M.S., AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER. C/O. HUCHCHAPPA, HOLEHONNUR, NINGAPPA, BASAVANNANA, NEAR KENDAMMANA TEMPLE, GADIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. (VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4062 RPFC No. 42 of 2019 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.146/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This revision petition filed by the husband challenging the judgment and order passed by the Family Court in granting maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife during her life time and Rs.1,500/- per month to the son till he attains the majority from the date of petition.
#2. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not disputed.
#3. Respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the minor son of the petitioner. On certain allegations, the respondents are constrained to live separately and therefore, seeking maintenance, they filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4062 RPFC No. 42 of 2019 Procedure and the Family Court has ordered maintenance as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband has filed the present petition.
#4. When it is not in dispute that the respondents are wife and minor son of the petitioner, a duty is cast upon the petitioner/husband to maintain his wife and children. On perusal of Ex.P.3, it shows that the petitioner/husband is the owner of an auto-rickshaw. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is an agriculturist and auto- rickshaw driver and that itself prove that the petitioner is financially viable person. But the petitioner being the owner of the auto-rickshaw is running the auto-rickshaw for his livelihood, which proves the financial capacity of the petitioner to maintain his wife and son. Considering all these facts and also the cost of living in the present society, the maintenance granted by the Family Court to the wife and son of the petitioner is found to be very reasonable, just and proper. Therefore, viewed from any angle, as no ground is made out calling interference of the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4062 RPFC No. 42 of 2019 order passed by the Family Court, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE NSU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT:SNN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.