The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4214 RPFC No. 194 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR R.P.F.CNO.194 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI CHIKKARANGAIAH @ CHIKKARANAGAPPA S/O.LATE THIMMARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DOGGANAHALLI VILLAGE MALLEKAVU POST KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 (BY SRI H.V.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.RADHA W/O.CHIKKARANGAIAH @ CHIKKARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.5, 'SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA' 5TH CROSS, NMH LAYOUT CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU-560 090 … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT.BHAVANA N.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.302/2018 BY IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4214 RPFC No. 194 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order dated 24.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.302/2018 by IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru against the respondent-wife. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner-husband was not provided an opportunity put-forth his case by way of objections statement or to controvert the statement made by the respondent-wife before the Family Court, so also, he has not led in evidence. It is further contended by learned counsel that when the matter was set down for objection statement, the petitioner’s counsel sought for time which was rejected and the case was posted on 18.02.2020. This was a period when Covid-19 SOP came into force and global pandemic had affected everyone including the petitioner-husband. Hence, he could not participate in the proceedings. It is also contended that the parties to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4214 RPFC No. 194 of 2023 proceedings, from their wedlock, had given birth to two sons, namely, Ramesh and Rakesh, who are now adults and out of them, the first son, Ramesh has completed B.E. (Arch.) and working in Honda Motor Cycle and the second son, Rakesh has completed M.Com. and working in a private firm and they are earning good income and that the respondent-wife is residing with the children, who are supporting her financially. 2.1 Learned counsel further contends that the mother of the petitioner is aged, paralysed, undergoing oldage ailments and completely bed ridden. Hence, the petitioner has to take care of her, which was refused by the respondent-wife. Therefore, he had to live with the mother for the reasons that the respondent-wife was not cooperating with him and was adamant in nature in taking care of the mother of the petitioner. Several other allegations are made and reasons are put-forth by the petitioner-husband for not contesting the matter before the Family Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4214 RPFC No. 194 of 2023 2.2 It is also contended by learned counsel that as of now, the petitioner is retired from the Private Company and he is not earning any income as stated in the impugned order. He submits that since the petitioner may be getting around Rs.4,000/- per month now, he is unable to take care of himself. He submits that his aged mother has now passed away. He vehemently contends that the impugned order is passed without providing an opportunity to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner may be provided an opportunity to controvert the statement made by the respondent-wife, adduce evidence and cross- examine the witness. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-wife sustains the order passed by the Family Court and does not agree with the contention put-forth by learned counsel for petitioner. She contends that the petitioner had been following the matter, but not attended the Court deliberately and the petitioner has sufficient source of income to pay the maintenance amount to the respondent- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4214 RPFC No. 194 of 2023 wife. On these grounds, she seeks dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard learned counsels for parties, the fact remains that Crl.Misc.No.302/2018 was filed in the year 2018, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the matter and defend his case. Despite appearing before the Court, the petitioner has not participated and refrained from contesting the matter. Therefore, the Family Court has passed an order dated 24.02.2023, which is much after Covid-19 came to an end. 5. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the order passed is one sided without any statement or cross- examination or evidence of the petitioner herein. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be considered afresh by providing an opportunity to the petitioner. However, since the order is passed in the year 2023 and both the petitioner and respondent being aged 59 and 52 years respectively, it is the duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4214 RPFC No. 194 of 2023 respondent-wife. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires to be set-aside and the matter be remitted to the Family Court for fresh adjudication by confining to certain timelines and limitation of time for disposal of the case.
Decision
6. In view of the above, I pass the following: i) ii) ORDER The petition is allowed; The impugned order dated 24.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.302/2018 by IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby set- aside; iii) The matter is remitted back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication; iv) The matter shall be decided by the Family Court within a period of six months; v) Both parties shall be provided reasonable opportunity to put-forth their case, adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses; vi) The petitioner-husband shall pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, without fail; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4214 RPFC No. 194 of 2023 vii) The petitioner-husband shall also pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; viii) It is needless to mention that the Family Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on both parties for unnecessary prolonging and protraction of the proceedings; ix) Ordered accordingly. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19