Karnataka High Court
Praveen S/O Madhukar Chavan vs Smt. Jayashree W/O Praveen Chavan Ors on 31 July, 2012
Author: Dilip B.Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B. Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
R.P.F.C. NO.524/2012 C/W
R.P.F.C. NO.539/2012
IN RPFC NO.524/2012
BETWEEN:
Praveen S/o Madhukar Chavan
Aged about 38 years
Occ: Machinery Spare Parts Shop
R/o Near Al-Ameen Medical College
Farm House, Athani Road
Near Laxmi Temple, Bijapur
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti &
Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, Advs.)
AND:
1. Smt. Jayashree
W/o Praveen Chavan
Aged about 25 years
Occ: HH. Work
2. Kumari Vaishnavi
D/o Praveen Chavan
Aged about 8 years
2
Respondents No.2 is minor
R/by M/G Respondent No.1
Both are R/o Shamrao Yamanaji
Kadam, Takee, Tq. and Dist. Bijapur
... Respondents
(By Sri R.S. Lagali, Adv.)
This RPFC is filed U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against
the judgment dated 02.03.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No.517/2010
on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Bijapur. Partly allowing
the petition filed U/S.125 of Cr.P.C.
IN RPFC NO.539/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Jayashree
W/o Praveen Chavan
Age: 25 years
Occ: Household Work
2. Kumari Vaishnavi
D/o Praveen Chavan
Age: 8 years, Occ: Student
Since minor represented by her
Minor Guardian the mother
The Petitioner No.1
Both are R/o C/o Shamrao Yamanaji
Kadam, Takee, Tq. & Dist. Bijapur
... Petitioners
(By Sri R.S. Lagali, Adv.)
3
AND:
Praveen S/o Madhukar Chavan
Age: 36 years
Occ: Machinery & Spare Parts business
R/o Near Al-Meen Medical College
Farm House, Athani Road
Near Laxmi Temple, Bijapur
... Respondent
This RPFC is filed U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against
the judgment and order dated 02.03.2012 passed in Crl. Misc.
No.517/2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Bijapur.
Wherein, partly allowing the petition filed U/S.125 of Cr.P.C.
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:
(ORAL ORDER) DILIP B.BHOSALE J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The first revision petition (RPFC No.524/2012) is filed by the husband whereas, the second revision petition (RPFC No.539/2012) is filed by the wife and daughter. Both the revision petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the Family Court, Bijapur in Crl. Misc. No.517/2010.
4
3. The application bearing Crl. Misc. No.517/2010 was filed by the wife and the daughter under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance at the rate of `10,000/- and `5,000/- per month respectively.
4. The Family Court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2011, allowed the application and granted maintenance to the wife at the rate of `2,500/- per month and to the daughter `1,500/- per month. That judgment and order passed by the Family Court dated 31.05.2011 was carried in a revision petition bearing RPFC No.545/2011 by the husband before this Court. This Court set asdie the judgment passed by the Family Court and remanded the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law by affording the parties another opportunity to lead further evidence
5. After remand, the parties led further evidence and on the basis thereof, the Family Court awarded maintenance of `3,500/- per month to the wife and `2,500/- per month to the daughter. The relevant observations made in the 5 impugned judgment regarding fixing the maintenance read thus:
"28. The respondent as stated above is owning an Automobile Shop, which is run by him and his brother. They have got the sufficient income. Now there is no financial difficulty for the respondent, in view of the sale of the land as per the Ex.P-1 for `23,50,000/-. The Automobile Shop is situated at Station Road, Bijapur, where a lot of Garages are situated. This clearly shows that, the respondent should be getting a quite reasonable income from the Automobile business. It is suggested that, the respondent is getting an income of more than `50,000/- to `1,00,000/- per day. At least 20% to 30% would be the gross profit from the Automobile spare parts. Even if the total turn over for a day is taken as exorbitant, the income from the Automobile shall be and cannot be less than `5,000/- to `10,000/- per day. Therefore, I hold that the respondent having the sufficient income has totally neglected the petitioners and accordingly I answer the Point-1 in the affirmative.
29. Point No.2: The petitioner-1 is staying in a rented house. She requires the amount towards her food, clothing and the medicines and also to pay the rent. The daughter is admitted to the Daffodil School. In this regard the Ex.P-2 is the Certificate issued by the School Authorities. The respondent as well in his cross-examination has stated that, his daughter is attending the Daffodil School, 6 wherein the CBSE Syllabus is there. He admits that, every year the School expenses is `30,000/-, but he does not know the other expenses would be around `15,000/-. The Ex.P-2 clearly shows that, the School expenses viz., fees itself is `30,000/- and that apart `9,000/- and odd is required. Hence, for the child every month at least `2,500/- is required, as the School vacation of two months is taken into consideration by me. The respondent is capable of paying this amount. That apart in view of the status of the respondent and the need of the petitnoer- 1, if an amount of `3,500/- per month is awarded to her, the same would be quite reasonable and appropriate. It would permit her to lead a decent life befitting the status of the respondent. Accordingly I answer the point-2. The petitner-2 is entitled to the maintenance, till she attains the age of the majority and on her behalf the petitinoer-1 is entitled to receive the maintenance from the respondent. The petitioners are entitled to the maintenance from the respondent from the date of the Judgment."
6. The observations made by the Family Court in the aforementioned paragraphs clearly show that the respondent- husband and his brother are having business of selling of automobile spare parts which is located at Station Road, Bijapur, where lot of Garages are situated. They have not placed any authentic material on record to show, as to what 7 income they get from the business and in view thereof, the learned trial Judge has assumed that they must be getting good income from the business. This finding recorded by the Court below in my opinion, is reasonable and sustainable in law and deserves no interference by this Court.
7. In the circumstances, I dispose of both the revision petitions by the following order:
The revision petition filed by the husband i.e., RPFC No.524/2012 is dismissed, whereas, the revision petition filed by the wife and daughter i.e., RPFC No.539/2012 is disposed of as not pressed with liberty to them to file application for further enhancement, if circumstances so demand, in future.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG