Ningaiah vs Smt Chikkanagamma @ Nagamma on 20 February, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ningaiah vs Smt Chikkanagamma @ Nagamma on 20 February, 2017

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

                  R.P.F.C. NO.11/2011

BETWEEN:

NINGAIAH
S/O. LATE GOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.2/211,
DEVAIAHANA HUNDI MAIN ROAD,
SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE,
MYSORE - 23.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.ROOPESHA, ADV.)

AND:

1.      SMT. CHIKKANAGAMMA @ NAGAMMA
        AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2.      N. SAROJA
        D/O. CHIKKANAGAMMA @ NAGAMMA
        AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

3.      N.CHANAMMA
        D/O. CHIKKANAGAMMA @ NAGAMMA
        AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.

      ALL ARE RESIDING AT
      NEAR STATE BANK COLONY, SRIRAMPURA,
      MYSORE - 23.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.SESHADRI, ADV.)
                              2




      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2010 PASSED
IN C.MIS.NO.248/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.


     THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.1 was solemnized on 10.07.1990. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born out of the said wedlock. As there was disharmony among the spouses, wife and children having not been maintained by the petitioner, C.Mis.No.248/2005 was filed in the Family Court at Mysuru by invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. The case having been contested, after holding inquiry, wherein both parties adduced evidence, oral and documentary, learned Family Court Judge has allowed the petition in part and entitled the children to the payment of maintenance at the rate of `2,000/- p.m. each, from the date the petition was filed till they attained the age of majority. Assailing the order passed to the said effect on 3 30.09.2010, in C.Mis.No.248/2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, this petition was filed.

2. Heard Sri B. Roopesha, learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the petition.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner was unable to point out any income earned by respondent Nos.2 and 3, sufficient for their maintenance. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being minors at the relevant point of time, the court below has directed the payment of maintenance at the rate of `2,000/- p.m. to each despite the claim having been made at the rate of `1,000/-. The reasons which have weighed with the learned Judge to award maintenance at the rate of `2,000/- p.m. from the date the petition was filed till both the children attained the age of majority have been stated in para 26 of the order passed.

4. As the impugned order was not shown to be perverse or illegal, the liability to pay the maintenance being limited, till the period the children attained the age 4 of majority, there is no justification to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected.

Consequently, Misc.Cvl.No.5415/2011 does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court