SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Ashok S. Kinagi, J.
B C Hanumantharaju – Petitioner
versus
Kavyashree and Anr. – Respondents
Rev. Pet Family Court No.313 of 2023
Decided on 14.10.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Sathish T V., Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. Ramesh Naik L., Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Maintenance – Father is bound to maintain his daughters till they get married.

Headnote:

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144 [Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973]—Maintenance—Right of daughter—Respondents are petitioner’s daughters—Due to misunderstanding with respondents’ mother, both petitioner and respondents reside separately and mother of respondents and petitioner obtained decree for divorce—Respondents have not provided any records demonstrating that petitioner is paying maintenance amount to respondents—Petitioner, being a father, is legally bound to maintain daughters and provide excellent education to his daughters—Petitioner has not offered any maintenance to daughters—Petitioners are college-going students—Considering petitioner’s income, trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.6,000/- p.m. to each respondent from date of petition till they get married and also education expenses—Impugned Judgment passed by Family Court affirmed.(Paras 6 and 7)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER (ORAL)

This revision petition is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the judgment passed in Crl.Misc.No.146/2022 dated 07.03.2023 by the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this revision petition are as follows:

The respondents are the petitioner’s daughters. Due to a misunderstanding with the respondents’ mother, both the petitioner and respondents reside separately, and the mother of the respondents and petitioner obtained a decree for divorce in 2012. It is contended that they are having difficulty with their livelihood. It is contended that the father is not taking care of the respondents and is also not paying maintenance. The respondents are unable to maintain themselves. Hence, the petitioners requested the respondent to provide maintenance. Despite the request made by the respondents, the petitioner did not pay the maintenance amount. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.146/2022 under (Section 125 of Cr.P.C.) Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000/- p.m. Respondent No.2 is a minor, represented by her next friend, i.e., sister - respondent No.1. The petitioners appeared through their counsel, but did not file written statement. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to 10. The respondent did not file objections. Evidence of the PW.1 was taken as nil. The Family Court, after recording the evidence of PW.1 and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative. Point No.2 accordingly, point No.3 as per the final order. The petition filed by the respondents was allowed in part, and the petitioner is ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to each respondent from the date of the petition till they get married. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,04,000/- to the respondents towards educational expenses incurred during the current academic year. Further, the petitioner has also been ordered to pay the respondents a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment passed in Crl.Misc.No.146/2022, filed this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot pay the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court. He submits that the Family Court has not provided sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to file a statement of objections and to lead evidence. He also submits that the respondents’ mother and petitioner divorced in M.C.No.328/2013. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay compensation as the respondents demand. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the revision petition.

5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the respondents are the daughters of the petitioner, and further, it is not in dispute that they are residing along with their mother. Further, the respondents have not provided any records demonstrating that the petitioner is paying the maintenance amount to the respondents. Respondent No.2 is a minor, and Respondent No.1 is a major. It is not the petitioner’s case that respondent No.1 is an earning family member. The petitioner, being a father, is legally bound to maintain the daughters and provide an excellent education to his daughters. On the contrary, the petitioner has not offered any maintenance to the daughters, i.e., the respondents. The respondents have contended that the petitioner is running a Lorry Transport business in a Crusher and earning Rs.1 lakh p.m, and owns 1 acre of areca nut and coconut garden land and earning Rs.8,000 p.m. The petitioners are college-going students. Considering the petitioner’s income, the trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.6,000/- p.m. to each respondent from the date of petition till th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top