Karnataka High Court
Sayeedameenaz D/O Dastagirpatel ... vs Dastagirpatel S/O Chandpatel Biradar on 7 August, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MFA No.200095/2019 (FC)
BETWEEN:
1. Sayeedameenaz D/o Dastagirpatel Biradar,
Age 20 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Bekinalkar House,
Nav Bag, Vijayapura,
Tq. & Dist. Vijayapur.
2. Mohammed Noomanpatel
S/o Dastagirpatel Biradar,
Age 14 years, Occ. Student,
U/g of his natural mother
Ameenabi W/o Dastagirpatel Biradar,
Age 49 years, Occ. Household work,
R/o Bekinalkar House,
Nav Bag, Vijayapura,
Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura.
... Appellants
(By Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, Advocate)
2
AND
Dastagirpatel S/o Chandpatel Biradar,
Age 54 years, Occ. Teacher,
R/o Government Primary
Kannada Girls School,
Kakhandaki, Tq. & Dist. Vijayapur.
... Respondent
(By Sri Ajaykumar A.K., Advocate)
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under
Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 praying to
allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned
judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed in
O.S.No.1/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Vijayapur.
This miscellaneous first Appeal is coming for
admission this day, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR J.,
delivered the following;
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.1/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapur (hereafter referred to as the 'Family Court' for brevity).
2. The suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking for maintenance from the respondent/ 3 defendant is dismissed. Therefore, the appellants/ plaintiffs have preferred the above appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows ;- The respondent and one Ameenabi are the husband and wife and they were blessed with children who are the appellants herein. It is stated that the respondent had deserted their mother and appellants and has neglected to maintain them and therefore the appellants have filed the suit for maintenance. It is stated that the appellant No.1 is selected for Dental education in KLE Dental College, Belagavi on payment seat and the appellant No.2 is student studying in 9th standard and they have stated that the mother of the appellants used to bear all the expenses of the appellants. It is stated that the respondent had neglected to maintain the children and also neglected in giving education to the appellants.
4
Further it is stated that the respondent is the owner of the agricultural land and also the respondent is a Teacher in Government Primary School. Therefore, upon the allegation that respondent had neglected to maintain children; the appellants have filed the suit seeking for maintenance from the respondent.
The respondent appeared in the suit through Advocate and contended that he had given all the financial assistance to the appellant No.1 to pursue her medical education. The Family Court after appreciating the evidences both oral and documentary from both the sides, had dismissed the suit of the appellants. The Family Court after appreciating the evidences on record much particularly the evidences placed by the respondent as Ex.D1 to Ex.D16, which show that he had paid college fees of appellant No.1 in pursuing the dental course by the appellant No.1 and therefore the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent within his available source of income has 5 given all the necessary education to the appellants. Therefore, the Family Court came to the conclusion that respondent had not neglected the appellants and based on the documentary evidences placed before it dismissed the suit of the appellants. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sri Sudheer Kulkarni and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Ajaykumar A.K and perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the dismissal of the suit is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record and the Family Court has not appreciated the evidences on record correctly that the respondent has failed to maintain the appellants. It is further submitted that the respondent being the Teacher had not produced any evidence to 6 show that particularly he has paid all the expenses towards education of appellants No.1 and 2.
6. Further submitted that even though the Family Court had observed that the respondent had made expenses towards education of appellant No.1 in pursuing dental course but that alone is not sufficient since the appellants are required to be paid hostel fee, shelter, food, books and other expenses and other essentials for which the respondent has not provided any money towards them.
7. Therefore further submitted in this regard the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Family Court ought to have awarded some amount towards maintenance to the appellants. Further submitted that the respondent is the owner of the agricultural land and therefore he is also having income from the agricultural land. But on the other hand the mother of the appellants is a school teacher. Therefore, 7 submitted that even though both respondent and his wife are school teachers but the mother of the appellant has to shoulder the burden of maintaining the children but whereas the respondent is a free man and he is alone. Therefore, considering these aspects the Family Court ought to have awarded some amount towards maintenance to the appellants. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment of the Family Court and grant maintenance amount towards the appellants.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that the respondent had never neglected the appellants to maintain them and has provided all the financial assistance for pursing their studies and considering the evidence before the Family Court, the Family Court upon appreciating these documentary evidences has rightly dismissed the suit and therefore the finding given by the Family Court that the respondent never neglected the appellants on the other hand he had 8 maintained the appellants and therefore the appeal is devoid of merits and hence prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. The relationship between the appellants and their minor guardian and the respondent is not disputed. The appellants are the children of respondent. It is only the ground of the appellants that the respondent has neglected to maintain them. But the respondent has produced documentary evidences as Exs.D.1 to Ex.D16, which show that the respondent has provided financial assistance to the appellant No.1 to pursue dental education in KLE Collage, Belagavi. The Family Court had discussed documentary evidences that the respondent has paid all the necessary college fees, tuition fees, hostel fees as and when demanded by the college. Therefore, upon considering all these evidences and observations made by the Family Court it cannot be said that the respondent had neglected the education needs of appellants.
9
10. The mother of the appellants is also school teacher as it is not disputed fact. The evidence proves that the respondent had not neglected in giving of education to the appellants. However, from the records it is born out that the respondent is the owner of agricultural lands as it is evident as per Exs.P.1 to P.3 RTC extracts placed before the Family Court.
11. Now at this stage, the appellant No.2 being the son had attained the age of majority. Therefore, as a matter of right after attaining the age of majority cannot claim maintenance from the father. But the appellant No.1 is the daughter and till her marriage it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain appellant No.1. Even though it is proved that respondent has provided dental education to the appellant No.1 but still the respondent owes some duties towards the daughter who is appellant No.1. Payment of educational expenses though considered to be part of maintenance but for actual living other expenses will be there it has to be 10 shared by respondent along with his wife who is already looking after them by keeping with her.
12. Therefore, the appellant No.1 is still entitled maintenance till her marriage. For this the respondent is responsible to maintain his daughter the appellant No.1. Just because the respondent has looked after the education of appellant No.1 and even by this time appellant No.1 might have completed her dental course at KLE College, Belagavi that does not absolve the responsibility of the respondent since the appellant No.1 is still to maintain herself till her marriage. For this the respondent shall pay some amount to the appellant No.1 towards her maintenance till the date of her marriage. Mother of the appellants is also school teacher and respondent is also school teacher apart from that respondent is the owner of the agricultural land as evidences produced as per Exs.P.1 to P.3 - RTC extracts and therefore if it is ordered that the respondent shall pay a maintenance amount of 11 Rs.2,000/- per month to the appellant No.1 apart from the educational expenses which he is said to be paid to appellant No.1 till she completes her education or till the date of her marriage that would meet the ends of justice.
13. The appellant No.2 has already attained the age of majority, therefore, he is not entitled for any maintenance from respondent. Therefore, in this regard the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. Accordingly, we pass the following ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018 in O.S.No.01/2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura is set-aside.
The respondent-husband is hereby directed apart from payment of educational expenses, to pay monthly 12 maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the appellant No.1-daughter of the respondent from the date of suit till her marriage.
In the light of the submissions made by both the parties that the appellant No.2-son has already attained the age of majority, the appeal as against him stands dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE sn