1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

R.P.F.C. No.138 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

MR.SANAL JOSEPH BERNARD PARAYCADE,

S/O. MR.BERNARD PARAYACADE,

AGED 37 YEARS,

R/AT 102, KALINA VILLAGE,

1^ST FLOOR, SANTACRUZ (E)

MUMBAI- 400012

WORKING AT TATA MEMORIAL

CENTRE HOSPITAL,

DR.E.BORGES MARG,

PAREL, MUMBAI-400012,

MAHARASTRA.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS.GEOVIYA GEORGE NENMANIKKARA,

D/O. MR.NENMANIKKARA POULOSE GEORGE,

W/O. MR.SANAL JOSEPH BERNARD PARAYACADE,

AGED 29 YEARS,

R/AT 102, 1^ST FLOOR, REJOICE APTS,

PINTO9S LANE, BUNTS HOSTEL,

MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT.

PIN-575004.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.M.S.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

2

THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S 19(4) OF THE FAMILY

COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED 12.7.2016 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.27/2015 ON

THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT D.K,

MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED

UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision petition is presented by one

Mr.Sanal Joseph Bernard Paraycade under Section 19

(4) of the Family Court Act, against the judgment and

decree passed in Crl.Misc.27/2015 dated 12.7.2016 on

the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K.,

Mangaluru, wherein the petition filed by the revision

respondent was allowed. The operative portion of

order passed by the Family Court is extracted as

under:

<The petition filed under

Section

125

of

Cr.P.C

and

Section 20 and 22 r/w 26 of

3

D.V.Act by the petitioner is

hereby allowed in part.

The respondent is hereby

directed

to

pay

a

sum

of

Rs.20,000/-

p.m.,

as

maintenance to the petitioner

from the date of filing of the

petitioner till her lifetime or until

her remarriage.

The respondent is directed

to pay litigation expenses of

Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.

The

petitioner

is

gi

ven liberty to proceed with the

claim of monetary relief under

Domestic Violence Act and also

for permanent alimony in the

petition filed by her in the

Family Court at Bandra=.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the order

extracted from the said court is as under;

<At the relevant point of

time

the

respondent

was

studying in M.D. Pharmacology

in A.I.I.M.S New Delhi which is a

pioneer institute in India. He

intended to join M.D. either in

surgery

or

Neurosurgery

in

A.I.I.M.S

New

Delhi

in

the

month of November 2013 which

was one of the most sought for

programmes in said institution.

4

The respondent had portrayed

himself

as

something

extraordinary and hence, the

petitioner

and

her

parents

decided to go ahead with the

marriage.

On

4-8-2013

the

petitioners9

family

made

the

respondent9s family in Mumbai

in their house. They portrayed

themselves as highly cultured

and decent and warm people.

They stated that they did not

want

any

dowry.

The

respondent9s parents told that

they would visit the petitioner9s

parental house at Mangaluru

and then confirm the date of

marriage. During the 2^nd week

of August 2013 the mother of

the

respondent

had

never

informed the petitioner9s mother

that the respondent had availed

Rs.15,00,000/- loan from his

brother for traveling and other

expenses

in

U.S.,

for

his

education.

Further

for

the

operation

of

respondent9s

mother who had breast cancer

and for the father who was on

heart patient the respondent

had borrowed loan. It is further

stated by the mother of the

respondent that they wanted

Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. At

that time, the petitioner had

5

developed some sort of friendly

relationship with the respondent

and petitioner9s parents having

only one daughter agreed for

the

payment

of

dowry

and

arranged

for

a

sum