1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

R.P.F.C. NO.125 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI. GIRISH

S/O LATE MARIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/AT 1^ST CROSS, SHEET HOUSE,

ADJACENT TO UDBAVA GANESH A TEMPLE,

UDAYAGIRI EXTENSION,

HASSAN - 573201

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SMT. MANJULA

W/O GIRISH

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

2.

DEEPIKA

D/O GIRISH

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

R/AT MAYASAMUDRA VILLAGE,

DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.

&RESPONDENTS

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE

FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

01.04.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO. 38/2017 ON THE FILE OF

THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT HASSAN, PARTLY

ALLOWED THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF

CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

2

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

01.04.2021 passed by I Addl. Family Court, Hassan

(henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in Crl. Misc.

38/2017 by which, the Trial Court directed payment of

maintenance of a sum of `2,000/- per month to each of

the respondents herein.

2.

A petition under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by respondents

claiming maintenance of `20,000/- per month from the

petitioner herein. It was contended that a sum of

`1,00,000/- and 100 grams gold ornaments was given as

dowry at the time of marriage. It is claimed that after the

marriage, they lived peacefully for a year in the

matrimonial home at Hunasinakere. However, since the

petitioner contracted an illicit relationship with another

woman and when he was questioned, he started treating

the respondent No.1 cruelly. It is alleged that he

demanded an additional dowry of `2,00,000/-. The

3

respondent No.1 alleged that on a certain day, the

petitioner quarreled with the respondent No.1 and

attempted to douse her in kerosene and set her ablaze.

She was thrown out of the house and from the last 10-11

years she was living at parents house at Mayasandra

village where she was eking out her livelihood doing odd

jobs and was educating her daughter. The respondent

No.1 alleged that the petitioner did not care for her and

their daughter and failed to maintain them. She alleged

that the petitioner was employed in a Company at

Industrial Area, Hassan and he was earning `40,000/-

every month. Therefore, she claimed that the petitioner is

liable to maintain the respondents and hence filed the

petition claiming maintenace of `20,000/- per month.

3.

The petitioner contested the petition and

claimed that the respondent No.1 lived peacefully with the

petitioner till the daughter was born. He alleged that

respondent No.1 was pestering him to buy ornaments. He

alleged that the respondent No.1 was not willing to stay at

the Slum Board Building, which was granted to his mother

4

at Hassan and wanted to set up a new house elsewhere in

Hassan. When the petitioner did not accept this, the

respondent No.1 took away the daughter to her parents

house in Mayasandra village. It is alleged that during May

2017 about 100-150 people from Dalit Sangh had thrown

out the petitioner from the Slum Board House and that the

respondent No.1 is in occupation of the said house. He

claimed that he was employed as a Security Guard and

that he was residing in Asbestos Sheet House provided by

his owner. He claimed that he was not in a position to

maintain himself and therefore, he was not liable to pay

any maintenance.

4.

Based on these contentions, the Trial Court set

down the case for trial.

5.

The respondent No.1 was examined as PW1

and she marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-8 and she also

examined another witness as PW2. The petitioner did not

lead any evidence.

6.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court held t