1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 3AwAD RAHIM RPFC NO 53 OF 2010 BETWEEN B RANGASWAMY S/O.BASAvAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS _ R/AT.NO.227, VENKATAGI-RI NILAYA ERAGANAHALLI NEW LAYOUT I MYSORE 570011 I §';'w._'_PETITIONER (BY SRI'IfPAI§»MAN'ABHAREDIIEAVR, ADVOCATE) AND:9I . 7 I _ .. SMT C ~O_sH..AF-LANI " .. ,%_vV/OB RANOASWAMY "AGE ABOUT32' YEARS R./AT D/NO.57s, 2ND MAIN " MAHAvRA.S"IiRA BEEDI, NAZARBAD '--..,I'MYS'OR£-:~,S70010 RESPONDENT I H I' (F3.Y__ SRIH KANTHARAJA & " SRI. ROHIT D.K. ADVOCATES) RPFC FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE F.C. ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 26.3.2009 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO. 93/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE RIDGE, FAMILY COURT, IVIYSORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE ETC. This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the foliowing:-- JUDGMENT
This revision is directed agaAi’nst,A_thAe V:de.ited’:
26.3.2009 passed in C.Misc. No. 932/2(5O_6’onbth_e”f»iie
Family Court at Mysore, directi’n.g the’–.petvi.tijonVerm’to pay V
Rs.1,000/” Der month”,towa.rd’s’A.pasts.__maintena’nce and
Rs.1,SO0/~ per month towardisiiitur_eii’m*a.i’ntenance to the
respondent/wifefiigjy
2 . H ea-rd both.» ” « .2 =”
_3, There no dAi”spVLJ”te between the parties that they
.–Warezand’Hwi’fe;’VThe only aiiegation made by the
petitioner had demanded dowry and
harassed,.heir-,,.aind that he has failed to maintain her. The
2″»-i..__”i.earned Triai Judge has taken note of the ailegations made
vt_h_efpetition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., that
petitioner had harassed her and deprived her basic
Cnecessities in iife. However, while fixing the quantum, the
learned Triai Judge did not accept that the petitioner is
having income of Rs.8,000/–. Considering the probability of
T’
‘K
/iii
/’
the respondent earning, Rs.1,000/– is ordered towards
past maintenance and Rs.1,500/- towards future
maintenance.
4. The petitioner has questioned it on thegrou’ln_’gig—-:that_T’ .
he did not avail an opportunity to defend Learnedi ”
counsel would submit that there is’».1no:_pro3of«’of’ iAncon§e”‘s–..aF=id’
petitioner is actually joblessf He hardly earns to
150 /~ per day from distributing:news,pape’r rinorning.
Therefore, he needs anfiopiportunvllity-to”establish that he
has no income. V
S’, Per’contra-,..:l’earried*~.counsel for the respondent has
opposed petitioner ground that the petitioner is
earning’ l7.s.8,OV'(Jf}./V:–:,v_ whereas the respondent is suffering
wi’thout_vAre.sou’rice. The Trial court has awarded very less
lamlougntxf ‘=~5:;!’.l’b”mits that the amount of maintenance
. ordered”fis””very low and hence interference is not
if’H–.nece.s.savrv. However, considering the fact that the
-l ptetitiolner did not lead evidence and he should be given an
opportunity to establish his case, appropriate order has to
be passed.
/N’?
‘/
«V: R
‘~ . .a,P.eti~–t.ion allowed.
6. I am inclined to remand the matter to the Trial
Court to consider the grounds urged by the petitioner and
to re~–fix the quantum. Therefore, the impugned_.-order
dated 26.3.2009 passed in C.Misc. No. 93/2006
of the Family Court at Mysore, is set 0′
remanded back to the Trial Court torrproyideany”oppoVrt.;;illit§,:,l’ 6′
to the husband to establish that ahcor.5¢.
opportunity should be givenltogthe reAs”po__ndenttdéstablish 6′ 6
that her case. Till such.findingiVs”g_’reC~orded}’the petitioner
shall continue to pay n’1a1i_lrite’n_a§’nr;ertheyrespondent at
Rs.1,000/~ as4.:or.d_eredW:’by:l tine}.i_Trib~u’riaI. This order
regarding –.p’aym’7eifrt.:’cf_l’R.s;’1..,00’0/– is subject to the final
order that’m__ay be 6
Se’ ..