Karnataka High Court
Sri K M Appojigowda vs Smt G Geetha on 13 September, 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
RPFC No.117 OF 2018 C/W RPFC No.129 OF 2016
In RPFC No.117/2018
BETWEEN
Sri. K.M.Appojigowda,
S/o. Munivenkatappa,
Aged 40 years, R/at Kallipura Village,
T.Gollahalli Post, Bethamangala Hobli,
Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District-563120.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Chandra Mohan J.G., Advocate)
AND
1. Smt G. Geetha,
D/o. Govindappa,
Aged about 35 years,
2. Mater Bhanutheja,
S/o. G.Geetha, Aged 12 years,
Since minor represented by
Mother & Natural Guardian
Smt. G.Geetha,
Both are residing at Parehosahalli,
Kamadenuhalli Post, Huthur Hobli,
Kolar Taluk-563101.
...Respondents
2
(By Sri. Giridhar H., Advocate for R1)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of Family
Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment dated 05.07.2016
passed in Crl.Mis. (FC)No.91/2013 on the file of the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Kolar, partly allowing the petition filed
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
In RPFC No.129/2016
BETWEEN
1. Smt G. Geetha,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o. Sri. K.M.Appojigowda,
D/o. Govindappa,
2. Mater Bhanutheja,
S/o. Sri. K.M.Appojigowda,
Aged about 10 years,
Since minor represented by
His Natural Guardian, Mother,
Smt. G.Geetha,
Both are residing at Parehosahalli,
Kamadenuhalli Post, Huthur Hobli,
Kolar Taluk-563103.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Giridhar H., Advocate)
AND
Sri. K.M.Appojigowda,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o. Munivenkatappa,
R/at Kallipura Village,
T.Gollahalli Post, Bethamangala Hobli,
Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District-563114.
...Respondent
3
(By Sri. Chandra Mohan J.G., Advocate)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act read with Section 125 of Criminal Procedure
Code,1973, against the judgment dated 05.07.2016 passed
in Crl.Mis. (FC)No.91/2013 on the file of the Principal Judge,
Family Court Kolar, partly allowing the petition for
maintenance.
These Petitions coming on for admission, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
These two revision petitions arise from the order dated 5.7.2016 in Crl. Mic. (FC) 91/2013. In RPFC 117/2018, husband is the petitioner and in RPFC 129/2016 the wife and her son are the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By allowing the petition, the court below has directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the son till he attains the age of majority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in RPFC 117/2018 submits that the husband disputes the paternity of Master Bhanuteja, the second petitioner in maintenance 4 proceeding. Blood sample was collected for being sent to Laboratory for DNA test. The report of the Laboratory is that the petitioner in RPFC 117/2018 is not the biological father of Master Bhanuteja. In spite of the report being like this, the trial court proceeded to award maintenance which is illegal and therefore the order needs to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the wife and the son argues that they filed statement of objections to the DNA report. The Assistant Director of the Laboratory who gave the report should have been summoned for cross- examination because if the report remains unchallenged, it will be permanent stigma on the wife and child. He also submits that the court below has committed an error in granting meager amount towards maintenance and this amount is not at all sufficient to lead life. Therefore they have questioned the order. There is a case for enhancing the compensation.
6. After hearing both the sides, it is clear that the husband seeks to set aside the impugned order on the 5 ground that he is not the father of Master Bhanuteja. Even the wife disputes the report given by the Laboratory. It is on record that the wife filed statement of objections to the report given by Truth Labs. Having filed statement of objections, the wife should have applied for issuing summons to the concerned for cross-examination. Probably for the reason that the wife did not apply for summons, the court might have proceeded further. The impugned order shows that the court below has not considered the Laboratory report, but the wife disputes the report and she says that an opportunity should have been given to her to cross-examine the expert who has given the report. Even the counsel for husband argues that the court below ought to have considered the report and dismissed the maintenance petition. Thus seen the court below has committed an error. Therefore, in these set of circumstances, I am of the opinion that in order to provide an opportunity to the wife to cross- examine the expert who has given the report, the impugned order needs to be set aside and matter remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law. The wife is given 6 liberty to cross-examine the expert. If she applies for summons to the expert, the court below shall issue summons and secure the expert for examination by the parties. With these observations, these two petitions stand disposed of. Impugned order is set aside. Liberty is also given to the parties to adduce further evidence or further cross examine any witness. Parties shall appear before the court below on 14.10.2019. Send back the LCR.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ckl