Sri Mallayya S/O Sangayya Mathapati @ ... vs Smt Mahadevi W/O Mallayya Mathapati @ ... on 24 June, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Mallayya S/O Sangayya Mathapati @ ... vs Smt Mahadevi W/O Mallayya Mathapati @ ... on 24 June, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 216 (KAR.) = 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 279, 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 99 (KAR.) = 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 279 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 279, 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 279, 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 279 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 99 (KAR.) = 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 279, 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 99 (KAR.) = 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 279

 

IN THE .HIGH comm' op' KARNATAKA 
DATED THIS THE 24TH pgfw op }.:1_j:jN%1§', :é§0io&8 V * 
BEFORE . , _&   _  
THE I-IONBLE MR. .3U$:f1CE%   

R.p.F.c. NQ1.. iA'33"»QF 2oc>ea,% 

BETWEEN :

SR1 MALLAE:5YA._  ¢  
s/0 SANC¢AY§Y";A. MATHAPATI,
AGED 56       
occ:  (;:,%E_B.;*% 1?)_E3Pf=sRTMENT
Hxsscoxvi, .2~3AG'fALKQf1' ROAD
BIJ}'s,_PUR'..     %

Q5 MATH

(1

 PETITIONER

(By Sri: ASHQK .RVVVK.}i£;;YA§¥AS}{E'?'FY, ADV.,)

    ..... 

 % =~S'iV'£T"MAH'ADEVi

 ._XN_[OV"N§ALLA'YYA MATHAPATI @ MATH
AGED. 48jj'EARS
OCC:"*HOUSEHOLD WORK

3 SR; GURULINGAYYA_
  ks,Io MALLAYYA MATHAPATI  MATH
AGEQ 23 YEARS

A   c;»<:c:: STUDYING IN BA. PART «I

AT V.V. SANGHA DEGREE COLLEGE

BOTH ARE R/O. CHANNABASAPPA .BHAVIKATTI

KAMANKHAN BAZAR, GOUDAR GALLI
BIJAPUR.  RESPONDENTS

 



 

2

(By Smt: VIJAYA R I~iIANMAN'I'G.AD FOR F21  h

RPFC FILED U/S 19 (4) OF THE FAEJELY' CCiU'«§'I'S'*--V_.AC'§'
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 12.;6';'2Q(}6VPAS-SE?) _£N

CRL.MISC.N0.22/2005 ON THE 3fiLEi"€3F'*4._THE__'VJ';E1:5G;3?,i' FAMILY
COURT, BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLowA1Nc:***r:1ETTPﬁfrxaﬁxoni-.F:LE:3 {US
127 C:-.10. C. FOR ENHANCEMENT C>.P..M'AINTEA§AN:CE AI\3I{)U=N'I'.

THIS P13'1'moI-:' <3OM1NG{:i§w«*oR rmA;2%:NG%rt:;s BAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FGLLOWINs'_3_:     

The petit:ic$f:':g=2f   'is': the husband of the
responcient " 1513 respcméent No.2, has
chaliengéci  'Correctness of the order dated

.12.06.2806  "f;;.f;.'€_'z{3L?;r'Iis<:.?\§o.22/2.9305 by the learned

4g_}udge,..«.§f'u3.n1§1y *V:'iou;f?;_,_é&vBij3.pur, enhancing the maintenance

paj.?a§15:i2'i'eVb3; theA.é§)»&a_titioner herein to the respondent No.1 from

ﬂu',~._"'-vvY'RSa3{}Qfv4 300/-- per month and from RS.2{)Q/~ to

/~  month to respondent No.2'

  The brief facts of the case is as under:-«

(a) Respcmdent Neal and 2 respectivei}-? being the

' U wife and sen of the petitioner, ﬁled maintenance petition
in Cr}. Misc. No.37/1992 on the file of the Eeartaed
J.M..F'.C., Basavana Bagewadi, Bistrict Bijapm: The
said petition came to be allowed and a sum of RS300/-

f__'r----./"tr~'\'gvw



6

Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel for the petiti_o1f::et*:.ﬁetreglgly

contended that the learned Judge of  

committed serious error in enhancirtg the  the 

second resp<:>ndent--son, despitearthe f'éae_t"'*:.hat1de tied

attained the age of majority.

6. In first of the  upon by the
learned Counsel  petitiottedr,' in the case of
C.Byr-aiah vs.  reported in 1999 (1)

KCCR 123, & 9  

" The mairitenan'::eA'=_caixnot be granted to Major

_ ohildraeri in the absence of any physical or natural
 "abncrf'naiityt-- or  In the said case before this
"~_Hor1?b}e the daughters had attained the age
of inaiozitgt. "even; before filing the petition and they
were 'eduC:afjed91'and gainfully employed. Therefore, it

V  was 'held ' that so by this Court and the order

granting izjzterim maintenance in favour of the said

' H 4."'t1'e.':.1ghters came to be set aside".

5the said decisions i.e the decision of Andhra Pradesh

:C0Hrt in the case of K.Sivar-am us. Kﬁangalamba and

others repeated in 1990 CRL.L.J. 1330, it is observed at

para--8 of the judgement as under:

 ""\z



"As per Section 125, Crl.P.C., it is clear that __ the
maintenance can be awarded only to minor children
under Section 125, CrI.P.C., whether 
not, when they are not also to maintain the'nieelvee, 
Only in special circumstances the maintenance: '' 
be awarded even after attaining the majcxity ievhe_re__ 
such child is, by reason of any'j:§hyeieal.;o1{"mental 
abnormality or injury unable to '»ma._ir;tain».h'efeelf.7-~..Eni1i
the present case, the Court bele_w"--has fe:tInd' that '
though the 13* respondent is V a T' v.ph;§reicr1Ily
handicapped Woman, respcn;d.e'nts Noe. 2 am 3 are
quite well and intelligent. The'refc--r_e, I feel..that the
Court below ought'-.. not  .  ~,_.have awarded
maintenance to them fora 'pe':ied_he3{o'i:d the age of
their attaining ma_§oi_ity.'   "i"'T1ierefore, the
maintenance awiardedg tc 1fespon'dente' Nos. 2 and 3

is limited until  ..th.e'  of majority."

In the case at Khatotm vs. Mohd. Quasim

    3280, which is third of the above

 the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

:i'lr_lof;'ble  has observed at para:-10 as under:

 .c _"'r1?:u§, both under the personal law and the

i  ._etatntc~ry law (Section 125 of Cr.P.C.) the obligation
__e_f '.a"ivIusli1n father, having sufficient means, to

' naaihtain his minor children, unable to maintain

 wth'e"n1seIves, till they attain majority and in case of

it females till they get married, is absolute,

notwithstanding the fact that the minor children are
living with the divorced wife".



whatsoever can be passed by the Courts issuing enprfizind ef

direction in this regazd. Nething can be done in f3.§ie.1;1g~.

children till suitable amendments ere  

legislature to the relevant provisions o:t7.:41e's2fe.e .. 3

15. Since it is clear that a Vmajor eeli is 12'§:§'tA..'je;*,t11:§t3.edg 

law, to claim maintenance frem hie__fether_»_un1es«s,eueh sen has j

been suffering frczm any phyeizzai. ezj ..eLi:>t1orInality or 

injury resulting in his4.ifzabiI2:tf§*V'to~ 'lﬁmweelf, I have me

case cannot   his legal right, frem his
father, te:=:e:r;is  or educatien. Though the
petitziitjner-féi1:i1eA1;.:h.ag  obligation to maintain his son,
:ﬁevereheieVe:e',' = and mural obligation to pravide

}1vi§fi":vith b--:a__re requirements till he cemple-tee his

f'gef5a'd%ieticnVeLanci~~- {becomes able to maintain himself. Besicies

0  be.W}_3gt.;er if the petitioner-father keeps in his

 if he does not discharge now his moral and social

eézsiijgatien towards' hiesen, he would Ease his moral right to

enferce his legal right to maintenance against his son in future

c""(KWw\-/"



E

if, far any reason, he becomes unable to maintain '§jiirr1se1£

Therefore, having regard tn the peculiar  

circumstances of this case, the {earned  

petit.ioner~father shall, in the best intVé.§re.*3'tr  

and San, suitably advise the peti3;i¢:ner~fathar 

him to provide the 2% re:$panden_f'Lv-.--;Egan éivithr-' the bare
requirements so as to enable ;_thé-.3£atte:rLr'-.t;;.V"'become able to

maintain himaelf by gosigpzletihg ibis g:4aa.ua:1§n.

.16. In  '..«"r1Vi.§.cussion, I am of the
opinion that  {he Faxnily Court ccmrnitted
ermr Vin en"}1§a'I1{:ir1#.V  in favour af seccund
respcgrac§én:t¢;é;Qr"1_ﬁ'rlerﬁﬁitg he attaining the age of majarity and

zip; suf¥aririg.r'fr£3rri"j-..ai=iy physical car natural abnorznality or

gnjmy, 'Vvresu1ti.r£g., in his inability to maintain hirnself.

 _%'Fheref¢:~é,  irrxpugzed order, insofar it relates ta the

  of maimgenance in favour of second respondant

C'_§K\~wx.»/""\.



 

deserves to be set aside. Henm, the following:

ORDER

This Revision Petitian is    %  

irnpugled order dated 12.06.2i)(J6;'_"p§.:sé.e:.'<i'~'

NIisc.No.22/2005 by the    %

Court, Bijapur, insofaras itV-'i'a1gaté;$_to awarding of maintenance in favour ofT.'se'cz3i1:ti __.:€.é$pQf1dent--son is set aside. The:=vi;'i;.}§%ugxi1£ed. as it relates to enhaﬂdé1nef:;t in favour of first respcnd¢§'nt?wife- 1;.$_j1eff"¥if1»:Zi13tuI'bed. No order as tq costs. , - ..

Sd/ii Judge ;~*s;m§I-1?;

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Sri Mallayya S/O Sangayya Mathapati @ ... vs Smt Mahadevi W/O Mallayya Mathapati @ ... on 24 June, 2008