Karnataka High Court
Sri Nanjaiah vs Smt Gowramma on 21 January, 2021
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
RPFC No.116/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.P.F.C. No. 116 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Nanjaiah,
S/o. Late Sri. Mallaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o No. Kaggala Village,
Mallinathapura Post,
B.G.Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District - 571 417. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. K. Abhinav Anand, Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Gowramma
W/o. Sri. Nanjaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.151/F,
Bapuji Children Home,
3rd Stage, 4th Cross,
Gokulam,
Mysore City - 570 002. ...Respondent
(By Sri. Abhubacker Shafi, Adv.)
This RPFC filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 against the order dated 04.07.2012 passed in C.
Misc No.687/2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court,
Mysuru, partly allowing the petition filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
RPFC No.116/2013
2
This R.P.F.C. coming on for Final Hearing through Video
Conferencing/Physical Hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner herein was the respondent in C. Misc. No.687/2011 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Mysore ( for brevity the 'Family Court'), which was instituted by the present respondent, who is the petitioner in the said Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as "Cr.P.C.") claiming maintenance from the respondent therein, who is said to be her husband.
2. The Family Court by its judgment dated 04.07.2012, allowed the said petition in part holding that the petitioner/wife before it was entitled for maintenance @ `3,000/- p.m., and directed the respondent before it, to pay the said amount of maintenance from the date of petition during the lifetime of the petitioner before it and also directed to pay `4,000/- towards the cost of litigation to her. Challenging the said order, the respondent before the Family Court has preferred this petition.
RPFC No.116/20133
3. The respondent being represented by her counsel, is appearing through Video Conference.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing physically in the Court.
5. Heard the arguments from both side.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner (husband) in his brief arguments submits that, he does not dispute the relationship between the parties and admits that the respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner. However, he submits that, since he remained ex-parte in the Family Court, an opportunity to be given to him to put-forth his contention in the Court, since he has got valid grounds to contest the maintenance petition. In that regard he also draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-B to the present petition, which is the photo copy of the alleged police publication, where it is shown that the present respondent (wife) was alleged to be found missing from 28.11.2007 and the present petitioner, as her husband, had filed a missing complaint in Belakawadi Police Station. RPFC No.116/2013 4
7. Learned counsel for the respondent (wife), though initially opposes remanding the matter to the Family Court for its fresh consideration, however submits that, he may not have any objection provided, the amount of maintenance ordered by the Family Court under the impugned order be continued to be paid, till the disposal of the said C. Misc. No.687/2011 after its remand, including the payment of arrears and cost of litigation, as ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits his 'no objection' for the same.
8. In the light of the above submission, I am of the view that, since the present petitioner had remained ex-parte in the Family Court and claims that he has got a good case on merit to oppose the petition, liberty be given to him to contest the matter. At the same time, the petitioner (wife) in the Family Court (respondent herein) also cannot be denied maintenance amount, since she claims that she is unable to maintain herself. In that aspect, I proceed to pass the following,-
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed in part.
RPFC No.116/2013
5
ii) Judgment dated 04.07.2012 in C.Misc.
No.687/2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at Mysore, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court for its disposal afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondent before it to contest the matter in accordance with law, subject to the condition that the petitioner herein (respondent before the Family Court) paying maintenance @`3,000/- pm. and arrears if any to the petitioner therein, till the disposal of C.Misc. No. 687/2011 by the Family Court.
iii) However, it is made clear that the Family Court without being influenced by the order made today to continue to pay maintenance, to dispose of the petition before it, in accordance with law.
iv) The early disposal of the matter not later than four months from today, by the Family Court is appreciated,
v) In order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the matter, both the parties herein are directed to appear before the Family Court without anticipating any fresh notice or summons, on 09.02.2021 at 11.00 a.m. RPFC No.116/2013 6 The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with the Family Court's record to the concerned Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*