Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
N.K.SUDHINDRARAO, J.
Sunita W/o Shamrao Bennur - Petitioners
Vs.
Shamrao S/o Rajappa Bennur - Respondent
RPFC NO. 200008/2018 C/W R.P. No.200023/2016 RPFC No.200033/2018
Decided On : 11-09-2019
For The Appellant :Smt. Sharada Patil Kulgeri, Advocate)
For The Respondent:Sri Veerangouda Malipatil, Advocate for Sri B.V.Jalde, Advocate
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 127 and 125 - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Enhancement of the maintenance - Sought maintenance claiming - Interest of natural justice - Originally, Crl.Misc. came to be filed by the wife and children wife for herself and as a guardian for children sought maintenance claiming the husband being possessed of sufficient means neglected wife and children from being maintained knowing fully well they were unable tSo maintain themselves - Husband denied the contention and assertions of wife and children. The matter came to be disposed of wherein the maintenance month was granted - Wife and children filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount - Adjudicated filed by wife and children came to be allowed in part and the maintenance amount was enhanced at the following rate month to the wife per month to the children petition – Held, Petitioner No.2 Karan no doubt has become a major - Case of former husband Shamrao that the position of his son Karan has changed with reference to economic status, dependency or source of income - Position of the said Karan is status quo ante except that he is a late minor or present major insofar as the said person is concerned, he is stated to be studying and the only impact would be his requirements go on increasing till he starts earning circumstances, in case, a change of circumstance occurs entitling the Shamrao to pray for relieving him from the responsibility as contemplated under section 127 of Cr.P.C., doors will not be closed. Insofar as case on hand is concerned – Court do not accept the theory of stopping maintenance to son Karan only on the basis of attaining majority - Court find right to maintain is also a moral duty besides a legal one – Court find it is just and proper to order maintenance amount wife Sunita. Insofar as daughter is concerned, an amount of maintenance in the present rate to be reduced amount deserves to be granted to the son Karan totaling - RPFC No.200008/2018 is partly allowed
ORDER :
RPFC No.200008/2018 is filed by the wife and children of Shamrao seeking enhancement in the monthly maintenance and RPFC No.200033/2018 is filed by husband – Shamrao questioning the order dated 28.11.2017 passed in Crl.Misc. No.97/2016 by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi granting enhanced maintenance of Rs.7,500/p.m. to the wife first petitioner therein and Rs.4,000/p.m. to third petitioner therein from the date of petition. Review Petition No.200023/2016 is filed seeking review of the order dated 24.08.2010 passed in RPFC No.537/2010.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are hereinafter addressed in accordance with the status of their relationship i.e., the petitioners in RPFC No.200008/2018 as the wife and children and petitioner in RPFC No.200033/2018 as husband.
3. Before adverting on the other aspects of the case, the nature of the petition filed by parties herein is that in RPFC No.200008/2018 wife Sunita and children Master Karan and Kumari Kajal for enhancement of the maintenance over the present rate of Rs.7,500/and Rs.4,000/to the mother and daughter respectively by the learned Judge, Family Court.
4. Per contra, husband Shamrao has filed RPFC No.200033/2018 against the wife and daughter challenging the grant of maintenance of Rs.7,500/and Rs.4000/by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc. No.97/2016.
5. Originally, Crl.Misc. No.129/2005 came to be filed by the wife and children wherein wife for herself and as a guardian for children sought maintenance claiming the husband being possessed of sufficient means neglected wife and children from being maintained knowing fully well that they were unable tSo maintain themselves. Husband denied the contention and assertions of wife and children. The matter came to be disposed of on 11.07.2005 wherein the maintenance of Rs.2,400/per month was granted. However, wife and children filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount in Crl.Misc.No.35/2008 before the learned District Judge, Family Court. On contest the matter came to be adjudicated on 02.02.2010 on which date said Crl.Misc. No.35/2008 filed by wife and children came to be allowed in part and the maintenance amount was enhanced at the following rate; Rs.4,000/per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/each per month to the children from the date of petition. Against said order, the husband preferred revision petition in RPFC No.537/2010 and it is stated that the matter ended in compromise through mediation between the parties and it was disposed of under the following terms:
1. The petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/p.m. to Resp1 from the date of petition.
2. The petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/p.m. to R2 and R3 each from the date of petition.
3. The petitioner agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.750/p.m. in a R.D. A/c opened in the name of R2 and R3 each. Both the petitioner and Respt1 shall stand as a guardian to the A/c opened in the name of R2 and R3.
4. The petitioner is at liberty to see the R2, R3 his son and daughter whenever he wants viz., on the occasions of festivals, holidays – etc.,
5. The petitioner is at liberty to take R2 and R3 with him during winter/summer holidays and for any other important occasion.
6. If any arrears of maintenance amount is due; 50% shall be paid to the R1 in 5 equal monthly installments.
7. The balance 50% of arrears of maintenance amount shall be deposited in the name of R2 and R3 in a fixed deposit in the month of Jan 2011.
8. Henceforth the respondents shall not claim any enhancement of maintenance in due course.
Explained the terms and conditions to both the petitioner in presence of their counsel and agreed to.
6. Thus, the terms of mediation included that the maintenance to the wife will be accepted at Rs.2,500/p.m. to the wife and Rs.2,000/each for the children.
7. Meanwhile, the learned counsel for the husband Sri Veeranagouda Malipati
