Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mallikarjuna K.S. vs Smt. Bhagyajyothi @ Jyothi on 5 June, 2017
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
RPFC NO.14/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI MALLIKARJUNA K.S.,
S/O. LATE KAVAL SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.62,
12TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
ALSO AT GOKUL KRUPA
YADAVA ROAD, HOLALKERE TOWN
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. S.NAGANANDINI FOR
SRI G. JAIRAJ, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. BHAGYAJYOTHI @ JYOTHI
W/O. MALLIKARJUNA K.S.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
2. MASTER LALITHARAM K.S.M
S/O. MALLIKARJUNA K.S.
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED
BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN - MOTHER
SMT. BHAGYAJYOTHI.
2
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
HOMBALAHNAPALYA, SIRA CIRCLE,
TUMKUR CITY - 572 106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 IS MINOR, REP. BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19 OF Cr.P.C., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2016 PASSED IN
C.MIS.NO.66/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.1 was solemnized on 24.11.2010. Out of the wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. C.Mis.No.66/2016 having been instituted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents in the Family Court at Tumakuru, an order dated 30.07.2016 was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, entitling the petitioners for payment of maintenance at the rate of `3,000/- each p.m. from the date the petition was instituted. It was made clear that the liability in respect of the 2nd petitioner shall 3 be till the date he attains majority. Assailing the said order, this petition was filed.
2. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the record. Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order is illegal?
3. Notice sent to the respondent through RPAD by the court below was not served. Notice was held sufficient and by placing the respondent exparte, order dated 30.07.2016 was passed against the husband - petitioner herein.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the amount as was directed to be paid by the court below on 30.07.2016 has been deposited. According to her, part of the amount was deposited in this Court and the balance amount payable upto 31.05.2017 was deposited in the Family Court, Tumakuru.
5. Having regard to the submissions made and the record of the case, I am satisfied that the Family 4 Court, Tumakuru has decided the case in a hurry, without notice of the petition having been lawfully served on the respondent before it. The impugned order being an exparte order passed without service of notice in the manner recognized in law, is vitiated.
In the result, petition is allowed and the order dated 30.07.2016 passed in C.Mis.No.66/2016 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru is set aside. C.Mis.No.66/2016 is restored for consideration afresh. Statement of objections, if any, to the said petition shall be filed by the petitioner herein on or before 30.06.2017. Both parties shall appear before the Family Court at Tumakuru on 07.07.2017 and receive orders. The case shall be decided with expedition and before 31.10.2017.
There being no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties, the respondents have instituted C.Mis.No.155/2016 for execution of the order passed in C.Mis.No.66/2016, the deposited amount shall 5 be released in favour of the applicants in C.Mis.No.66/2016.
`6,000/- deposited in the Registry shall be transferred to the Family Court at Tumakuru for being released in C.Mis.No.66/2016 in favour of the petitioners therein.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca