Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sharanappa S/O Yenkappa vs Pushpa W/O Late Ramu Basti Anr on 15 February, 2012

Author: H.G.Ramesh

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

                                         RPFC No.525/2011 A/w
                                  Misc.CvI.Nos.151948 & 151949/2011


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

              DATED THIS THE   15TH   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012

                                 BEFORE

                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

                           R.P.FCNo525J2011
                                  A/w
                 MiscCv[Nos.151948 & 151949/2011
BETWEEN:

SHARANAPPA 5/0 YENKAPPA
AGE: 60 YRS
0CC: NIL
R/O KALIKA DEVASTANA
BEHIND NEAR OLD KEB COLONY
GOURIBIDNOOR
TQ, & DIST. KOLAR                                        . .   .PETITIONER

    (BY SRI VIDYADHAR B HUGGI. ADVOCATE)


AND:

I    PUSHPA W/O LATE RAMU BASTI
     AGE: 27 YRS
     0CC: HOUSEHOLD
     R/O GANGANAGAR
     NEAR KALESHWAR TEMPLE
     GULBARGA

2    SUNIL 5/0 LATE RAMU BASTI
     AGE: 8 YRS
     MINOR
     U/G OF RESPONDENL I                         ...   RESPONDENTh

    (Ri   -   SERVED)

     RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FC ACT. AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT DATED 20.03.2008 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISC.
NO.99/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE DIST. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT
                                        RPFC No.525/2011 A/w
                                Misc.Cvl.Nos.151948 & 151949/2011


GULBARGA PARTLY ALLOWING ThE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER U/S. 125 OF CRP.C.. AND PETITIONER NO.1 IS
ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE OF RS. 1,000/ PER MONTH FROM
THE RESPONDENT FROM THE DATE OF THIS PETITION AND
PETITIONER NO.2 Is ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE OF RS. 500/-
PER MONTH FROM THE RESPONDENT FROM THE DATE OF THIS
PETITION, TILL HE AYI'AINS MAJORITY.

      MISC.CVL.NO.151948/1 1 IS FILED U/S 5  OF THE
LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 1015
DAYS IN FILING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION. IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

      MISC.CVL.NO.151949/i 1 IS FILED U/O 41 RULE 5 R/W SEC.
151 OF CPC. PRAYING TO STAY THE JUDGEIVIENT AND ORDER
DATED 20.03.2008 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT AT GULBARGA
IN CRL. MISC. NO. 99/2007 AND ALSO FURTHER EXECUTIONAL
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ABOVE REVISION
PETITION. IN ThE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    RPFC A/W MISC.CVL.APPLICATIONS COMING ON                        FOR
ORDERS. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents. though served with the notice, have remained un-represented.

2. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition. Accepting the cause shown, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Misc.Cvl.No. 151948/2011 is allowed accordingly.

RPFCN0.525/2011A/w MIsc.CvLNos.151948& 151949/2011 4 -3-

3. By the Impugned Judgment, the Family Court at Gulbarga has awarded a maintenance of Z 1,000/- per month to respondent no.1, who Is the widowed daughter In-law of the petitioner and ? 500/- per month to respondent no.2, who Is the grand son of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to SectIon 125 of the Cr.P.C. submitted that the petition ified for grant of maintenance under the said Section was not maintainable as It Is not permissible in law for the widowed daughter-In-law and her minor son to claim maintenance from her father-in-law in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He also relied on the Judgment of this Court in OMAI'JA CHETAN & ANR vs. S.S.RANGEGOWDA & AM? (KR 2008 KAR 2240). I find substance In the submission made by the learned counsel for the petItioner. SectIon 125 of the Cr.P.C. does not Impose any liability on the father-in- law to provide maintenance for his widowed daughter-in- law and grand son. Accordingly. the Impugned Judgment Is not sustainable In law. Hence, I make the following order: iii RPFC No.525/20 1 1 A/w Misc.Cvl.Nos. 151948 & 151949/2011 The impugned judgment dated 20.03.2008 is set aside; the petition in Crl,Misc.No.99/2007 filed by the respondents before the Family Court, Gulbarga, stands dismissed. The revision petition is allowed accordingly.

5. In view of disposal of the revision petition, Misc.Cvl.No. 151949/2011 filed for interim stay does not survive for consideration; it stands dismissed.

6. As the respondents have remained un-represented, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him with this Court towards litigation expenses for the respondents.

Revision petition allowed.

safr hkh.