Mr Dhiraj Suvarna vs Mrs Annapoorneshwari on 17 June, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Dhiraj Suvarna vs Mrs Annapoorneshwari on 17 June, 2013

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

                         -1-
                                     RPFC No.92/2012

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE     2013

                       BEFORE

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

                   RPFC No.92/2012

BETWEEN:

MR DHIRAJ SUVARNA
S/O CHANDAPPA KOTIAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT "KRISHNAGIRI"
VAIDYANATHA NAGAR,
ATTAVAR, MANGALORE - 575001              ...PETITIONER

(By Sri NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND :

MRS ANNAPOORNESHWARI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O DHIRAJ SUVARNA
R/A MAROLI PADE HOUSE
KANKANADY, PUMPWELL
MANGALORE, D.K. - 575 001             ...RESPONDENT



     THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.4.2012 PASSED IN
CRL.MIS.172/2011 ON THE FILE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, D.K, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C.,
                                 -2-
                                              RPFC No.92/2012


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

                         ORDER

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

This revision petition by the husband is directed against the judgment dated 21st April 2012 passed by the Family Court, D.K., Mangalore, in Crl.M.C.No. 172/2011. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court has awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent - wife.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment.

3. As could be seen from para 15 of the impugned judgment, the petitioner has admitted that he was getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. On the facts of the case, the award of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance cannot be said to be erroneous to warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this -3- RPFC No.92/2012 Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. However, if there is any change in the circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for modification of the order impugned herein before the Family Court as provided under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No ground to admit the revision petition. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the revision petition, I.A.I/2012 filed for interim stay also stands dismissed.

Revision petition dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KNM/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court