Sharanamma vs Nagappa S/O Sidramappa on 15 November, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sharanamma vs Nagappa S/O Sidramappa on 15 November, 2021

Bench: M.G.S.Kamal

                              1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                            BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

                RPFC No.200089/2019

Between:

Sharanamma,
W/o.Nagappa,
Age: 53 years,
Occ: Housewife,
R/o.Nadur (B),
Taluk & Dist: Kalaburagi.
                                            ... Petitioner

(By Sri Gowal Deepak.K, Advocate)

And:

Nagappa,
S/o.Sidramappa,
Age: 58 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.Sallalli,
Taluk: Chittapur,
Dist: Kalaburagi-585 211.
                                          ... Respondent

(G.B.Yadav, Advocate)

      This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Courts Act praying that the dismissal order passed by the
learned District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi in
                               2




Crl.Misc.No.3/2017 dt.10.06.2019 may be set aside, in the
interest of justice.

      This petition coming on for admission, this day, the
Court made the following:-


                           ORDER

RPFC No.200089/2019 is filed by the wife aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2019 passed in Criminal Misc.No.3/2017 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi.

2. The petitioner herein had earlier filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in Criminal Miscellaneous No.119/1999 on the file of the III Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, seeking maintenance. The said petition was allowed directing the respondent herein to pay the maintenance of Rs.100/- p.m. Thereafter, she had filed another petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.22/1991 for enhancement of maintenance which was enhanced to Rs.200/- p.m. The petitioner, under the changed circumstances, has sought for further enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that the maintenance earlier awarded is not sufficient to 3 lead her life. The District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition on the premise that the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., was to be filed before the I Additional JMFC, Kalaburagi as it was the Court which had earlier enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act vests the jurisdiction in the Family Courts with regard to adjudicating matter arising under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., and excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1987 is extracted hereunder:

"8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.- Where a Family Court has been established for any area,-

(a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section;

(b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

(c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-

section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and

(ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established."

5. Thus, Petitions under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C., including Section 127 of Cr.P.C., needs to be filed before the Family Court and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate has been specifically excluded in terms of Sections 8(b) and

(c). Even the proceedings which were pending before the 5 establishment of Family Courts stood transferred to the Family Court on the date on which, it was established.

6. This aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the Family Judge while passing the impugned order.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, RPFC is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the District Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc.No.3/2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court to consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE bnv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court