Devappa Alias Devadas Son Of … vs Smt Govindamma Alias Sharnamma on 27 August, 2009

RPFC No.52 7/2009

IN '1'III; HIGH COURT OF KAI{I\IATAgf;g;~'.'    _
CIRCUIT BENCH AI'GUI.I3AR<;{A'::w.VV::§."' In I
DA-{ED TIIIS TI-IE 27"! DAII  'V: 
BEFQRE3  . _ .,
THE HONBLE MR.JUSII;IC:I§3' 
2909  I

BETWEEN:

DEJVAPPA ALI...¢xS,.DIEVAiDAS _ I __  :

SON OF RAN:CxA£§i3A_I. _   ,  ' 

AGED AI3«:aU'I'_:IQ"I,IEA.Rs,..,,,  ' _  '

OCCUPAII QI\I~.i:_ AG RICLI I.;1I'I;Iv R53. " 

R/O KU~F~'Il7IPI;I V1'1';I-_A.GI=:,...  " 

TQ AND DIS'I*;I'VRAIcIiU.R.'«w.._ _ .  PHIIIIONER

{By srisHIvAKIIMAR_I{AI;I;0I:, RAJKUIVEARK & VEERESH B
PATEL. ADI/'S.)V *  .-- V 

;§NW;fl" I

 " _$§\"/I"F. EQOVVIIIIDAMMA ALIAS SHARNAMMA
'  \2I;*I.E'2;~vQI:*I I3E3V*APPA ALIAS I)I«;vADAs..

AGED.ABC)U'I". 26 YEARS.

I = QCCUPA7E"'i();\I:: NIL.

R./'O CHANDRABANDA V1LI.A<}I:.
TQ' AN-D D"IS'I': RAICHUR.  RI2sIJo.AI:)I«:I\I'I'

I'RPI'C IPIIJEID U/S 19(4) 0? TE-II3 FC ACT AGAII\IS'.I" THE

 .VLJU"£)GMEN/I' AND ORDER D'I.'.I1.2.2C)O9 PASSEID IN

 (3f';I;.MISC.NO. 15/ 2008 ON THE I*-'ILIC OF 'I"I"IlE3 JUDGE. FAI\/III,Y

ECOURT, RAICI-IIER. PAR'I."I.,Y AIIL-OVVING PE'§"E"I'ION §7II.EZI) UNDER
.JSEC'l'ION 125(1) OF CRPC.

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION TI-{IS
DAY, TH IE (I()IERT MAD E "§'I*IE FC)I..I.O'WIE\IG:

€.,x'



RPFC No.52?'/2009
oR5ER
This petition is filed under Section 19(4].~-of the

Family Courts Act against the judgment and.'or}ier"s:ds.st't.ed

1 1.2.2009 passed in Cr1.MisC.No.15/2008'-«oh.t'h:ei'xfileV."'_ofV' 

the Judge, Family Court, Raicihtir;'«part.ly'  the

petition filed under Section _125{it}Ao'f._Cr.Py;yC;..1'" " it

2. Notice was iSSt1€drt0 the "but the

respondent remairied 'u_nrepreset1tetI'~

 I t h referred with reference to the
status iii  Court 

 V-<12;  petition averments in the Court below is

' _é1's..u11de~r:'«._  ._

 Vfiiétrriage between the petitioner and the

 was solemnized dtlring the year 1998. After

 ytheamarriage, petitioner joined the respondent and lead

hhappy married life for about 6 to 7 years. Marriage is

coilsummated. Th_ereafte2"', res pon dent started
6/



RPFCI No.52?/2009
_ 3 _

c.ons1.1ming aicohol and used to come to the h.ou$e._V_121te

at

in the night and he used to beat the  

instigation of his parents and famiiy n1e"n1b:evrS'."'.He also".

used to compel her to brixlg. 111;'()1'e' dowijf ['1V't)VV'r--."..:: 'h_e1'

parents house. T he respondent. and his fami«I_y"vm.einber3. '

used to tel} that if more    second
marriage W111 be  About one
year back res.p:'o~n_de1;':1't'   drove the
Detit,ior1veI7flQ:tit193:?»_1i\'1éi~ic:V'A1iot.tvse.'EPetitioner is unable to
rnain't;'1ii1"_   needs Rs.E3,000/~ per
month!'Flespondent '<itir1'1s 4 acres of land. He earns

._t.h:»1_n Ré'§2»...1.a}i}1s per year. Despite of possessing

 the resporident had neglected to

-- mé;intain-'ith'e petitioner.

" _  The respondenbhusband in the Court beiow

 filed objection st.2:-:.t:e1nent, as under:

Relationsship is 2Itdmit't'.ed. Marriage is pe1'formed at

the residence of respondent. No dowry is paid at the

Q.../



RPFC N0. 527 /2009

_4_i

time of niarriage. Tlie 2.al1ege1i_i'i._Vl',l'1£""'

respondent tliat he is addicted to consurne§l_al'(i:i:>h-e1_"a;ntl_

i_1l~t:reating the peiii:,i()11e1* ewe, denied. The"pe%1i:t,i0n'ei' left".

the company of the respo11d;e11T..;""A. 'i'('SVp:O11di'=I1'1t

through his parents anE1_v'"e.lders~~  

petitioner back; she refused ;"to_ l=i.\_./e V\7i'[l1.V_lfl(3A§'§ husband
and she insisted that' her 'l1_uf3slf;Jan'd:l sliould live with her
at Chandrab.ai:.de1. fifillsge. .' 'ff'-cjtiiZ~i0ner is capable of
maintaining'  «.:_ixv are as under:

'=I"W.l - Govindamma has st.at.ed in her evidence

'._lt"l1a'i: she was driven out of the l1C)11.S(:T' sayirig that in case

'if she does not bring 2.-1ddii:i<)na1 dowry, iliey will pe1'f0rm

seconci n1a1'riagge 10 the 1"esp0r1de1'1i:. Evidence of PW.2.

U"



RPFC No.52?/2()(i)9

n(37

Court ordered to pay mainieriarlee of  per'

month to the pc-rtii.ione1* (ii.irir1g_g her life  V 

8. Feeling agg1'ieved by 

the Court below, the l'responlc1le,_nl'1. v--  

preferred this revision petitioh-.._ --
9. I have '1t1ea_1'd'._the l'e.a':7I.1"<w:l-:1 counsel for the
petitioner. Hesobmi.ts--as'=ui'i--cler:l K

The4..}.11(:s§rn'e ~.oi' Kt_hepje1'iiiofier is  at

R839,O00/';fxp«e_»1'aa'I:lri'U.1}1-- by the Court below. Even

t.11o1.1gl1ut}1e 're_\fisiioh"-.petitior1er was ea.1*ning less than
Rs.3O,OO0._/9' per y_<~:3;r", the t.i'*ia.l Court  erred in

aw21rdli'1i;§ rnA:1i11V_i_:_e_1j1;~1nce amomit of Rs.1.200/~ per

'rr,1()nth... ,lt*--._is the contentioil of the learned COLl}'}.S€1 for
":1r_1e-- p:ef;it.i.o§1erf.. ~ husband that he  ready to take back

her \7vii'c?7eir;§_a1.ifl live with her' h.appil_v. He further submits

t:h:i.t: the"jietitioner « hu_sba1'1d  preparecl to part with

 AA  lm.;*11c)v21ble properties.

Q/'



RPFC §\l0.527/2009
,. 7 ,

1.0. The i.'1"1EH.€l'lal placed on record discilvosesiheit

the petiitioner A liiisbarid and his family n3.e_:fiibeis..__l'i:a}fei_

illsireated respondent -- wife aiiidihere was'--t}'_1re'2it. to 

life and in case if she does nolit bifing n1Qr'e_"deW:i*yA, "'i,'r_1e

family members of the pei,ii"lQner¥l*;i.LisbanlfjlAepeiirformil'

second marriage to__ him. _..._S:A'u.cl1.._Vbeing--.1:he_;§case, the

finding recorded   petitioner is

entitled to 1i'_»fe...sep_a1'a't'e~ly  claim maintenance is

sustainab1'e"inV 1i'''a-'oig_ '' «A
 1'. ' Th'e.t't:.r_ia»l._CQ_Liri. after examining the evidence
and the"mVat.eria_l  'record. has Come to a conclusion

i.¥ié}i;. ifhe efiimner -- husband is liable to a
   . P Y

V   1 ,200/ A per naonth to the respbnclent

?  .Tl*ie<:order passed by the learned Magistrate does

 not "VS[iiT€1" from any inC0x"1*ec:1:ness, in1p1*0priet:y or

V.i]»1"e"ga11ty.

12. In the 1'esi.1l1", I pass the fcillciwirigg:

:2/'



VN

RPF-"C No.52?/2009
_ 3 _
O R D E R

This revision petition is dismissed.