Vijayakumar S/O.Kanakappa Sakkari vs Sukannya @ Shashikala W/O.Vijayakumar ... on 5 July, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vijayakumar S/O.Kanakappa Sakkari vs Sukannya @ Shashikala W/O.Vijayakumar ... on 5 July, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

   . VPRAELTIIS / O Vi{m"$?AKUMAR SAKKARI
 THE REsm'.NO.2 TO 4 ARE
" ~ V W G .Or+'_ RESPONDENT NO.1

ARER/O OPP. CROSS No.1, ___NEAR; GOLGUMMAZ BIJAPUR, IN1}H3HKH{COURT(H"KARNATAKA,v CHﬂHHTBENCHA$(HHBARGA "

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY gO.'i.V BEFORE 1' ff % K > THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A.N.YENUG,O1*Aj;A: Gbwngx * 'V RPFC 546 0F;:2o 1 o iv 4.

BETWEEN:

VIJAYAKUMAR S/O KANAKAPPE_s;«K1<ARI._ -- AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: D. MANAGER OF s.B.'H.._ R/O PLOT NO. 174/A GIL/{\Bi?;E LA'1'C.)U'I'., OLD JEWARGI ROAD, GUL§}ARGA} " "

D151'. GULBARGA685102 * ' [BY SMT. LAXMI G;113.,g_DvOz:A':E) _ "

AND: . . . .. _ .

1 . SUKANNYA @ TSH}fs,HI1§i.Ai.A" ' ' W/O V1JA&%A1<UI»'LARv5§A;{1:AR:_ 1- ' AGE: 36 YEAE§S--, OOO: HOU's.EHO'LD WORK

2. PRAMOD .S_/O \ﬂf1Je?:xYé'J'{U1\A/JAIV5{' SAKK'ﬂ\l2I AGE: 18_%.YEARS, O(jC.:« STUDENT 3 'PRASANNAV/O VI.JAYAKU MAR SAKKARI AC-E:' 15' ¥EARS,"QC"vC.: STUDENT AGE: O7"----YEARS.""OCC: STUDENT SIJBHVASFI COLONY D1s11DE1JA1JUR--5851o1.

RESPONDENTS 1"») This RPFC is filed under Section 19 (4) of the FC Act against the judgment and order dated i5.02§'2v,O1O passed in Cr1.Misc.No.284/2008 on the fi1em~.oi. the District Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, part].y._a11ov'.?ﬂing..g the petition U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. for rnaintenianejei.ffThe petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,000/~ per__rnont-h'~to the Respondent No.1 and Rs.2,00Q/.=__perj'rnont'ii i:o_Fthe_ Respondent No.2 to 4 from the date_Ao1";p'e_titiA0n_,"tilt thueyi' attaining the age of majority. This RPFC Corning on_Vfor orders the " it Court made the following:

The Wife and children respecivtiveiyii ﬁled a petition claiming maintenaneei 125 of Cr.P.C. The petition wasgeontestecip.__FVirst' petitioner before the Court below through whom Exs.P~1 to P9 were d'1nairi_:ed'; :dffi_'he,'petitioner herein deposed as RW--1. The V -- Iearfieditiudge of the Family Court has allowed the 'AuV'4d"V.uVpttitionvdddentitling the first petitioner -- first respondent for maintenance at the rate of Rs.3.000/~ per hnrnontii and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 W respondents 2 to 4 it VJ' herein, at the rate of Rs.2,OOO/W each per mon.¥:h. by making clear that the entitlement of the petitioner nos.2 to 4 shall be till they of majority or until further orders."'« Ag said order, the petitioner has filedfthis.petitlic,n'.'v ' it

2. Learned counsel lap:lp=earing'* for the lllpetitioner would contend that, Viewllolilthe-..admisvsAioAn on the part of the first resporidelntli :th:\:1t:"he-r__l_'..occupation is household. iiioilvdependency and even otherwisetvthe_l"arii§3u1it:l'orderedjo be paid is excessive. Learned c--o'unslel:fwoulvd'=s:ul:>rn'it that the impugned order calls for interference._or,at least modiﬁcation in the form A_ of down"'th,e___maintenance amount. I do not find .7 ' -.Ine.1jit the contentions.

relationship between the parties is not in Jdispute;-'w First petitioner before the Court below is

-dunerriployed and she is only a housewife. Petitioner " ""Nos.2 to 4 before the Court below are the children of the petitioner herein. In the evidence of the petitioner herein ~ RW~1, he has not produced any show that his wife and children have means of livelihood and that th'ey"'arﬁe"..Anot' upon him. It is not in dispute".th'atz the.'Vpe'tivtione.r~~isg working as a Deputy Manager'. in xtlzedp of Hyderabad and his salary Ex.P«8 was Rs.28,9-48.70/- The fact that the petitioner children has been well etfidence on record. The fact the petitioner are not havingvvttariy' and they are depending upon*t.h_e peti.tioner also well established. Since the t has earning nearly Rs.29,000/~ per ti'--mointh;.,'f'nis fwil"e and children cannot lead a ].ife of penury," petitioner has the obligation to maintain :j'thes_. respondents. The petitioner has the means and Capacity to pay the maintenance amount ordered by the "'c'ou1't below. The inipugned order is a well considered Ex iv order, adverting to the material evidence, which.___'has been Correctiy appreciated. In the circu111st2.1H.r:'rf:tee§"p:'the amount awarded by the Court below as V' at the rates noticed supra, :L:é.ih'11Qt as, excessive. I I A I V in it The petition has '' rejected.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court