1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 07^{T H} DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

RPFC NO.100099/2019

BETWEEN:

1 .

SMT.LALITA W/O. PRAVEEN SUTAR,

AGE : 36 YEARS,

OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. HIREMUNNOLI,

TQ: KHANAPUR,

DIST : BELAGAVI-591302

2 .

KUMAR ADITYA S/O. PRAVEEN SUTAR

AGE : 7 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT,

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS

MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AS

NEXT FRIEND--

SMT. LALITA W/O. PRAVEEN SUTAR,

AGE : 36 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. HIREMUNNOLI, TQ: KHANAPUR,

DIST : BELAGAVI. PIN CODE-591302.

...PETITIONERS

(By Sri. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADV.)

AND

SHRI.PRAVEEN

S/O. PRAKASH SUTAR,

AGE : 39 YEARS,

OCC : JOB IN KLE HOSPITAL,

R/O : H.NO.571/A2, SPAR GALLI,M.

VADAGAON, BELAGAVI,

TQ AND DIST : BELAGAVI-590005.

…RESPONDENT

(By Sri. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADV.)

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY

COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER

2

DTD:13.02.2019, IN CRL.MISC. NO.354/2016, ON THE

FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY

ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF

CR.P.C.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of

learned counsel for both parties, taken up for disposal as it

was heard on merits.

2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated

13.2.2019, passed by the Judge, Family Court, in Crl.

Misc.No.354/2016 wherein the petition filed under Section

125 Cr.P.C by the wife and child was partly allowed. The

learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed petition in

respect to claim of maintenance by the wife –first petitioner

and allowed the petition in respect of petitioner No.2 directing

respondent to pay Rs.2,000/-p.m. till she attains the age of

majority. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is

filed.

3. The wife and daughter filed petition before the Family

Court, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. contending that they

stayed together for nearly 4 to 5 years. Only for a period of

3

six months they led happy married life. Thereafterwords, it is

alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental

harassment by the respondent and his family members. She

was not looked after well. The respondent and his parents

demanding her to bring money and gold from her parents

house and confined in a room and abused her in filthy

language. They never treated her with love and affection.

4. On the other hand, she was tortured by the respondent

and his family members. Though she tolerated the same, but

the parents of the petitioner came to know about that and

requested the respondent and family members to not ill-treat

her, but they did not consider her request. Subsequently she

was driven out of the respondent’s house. She was not

provided any food when she was in the husband’s house. As

the husband assaulted her and gave a life threat and driven

out her, so apprehending life threat she has left her

husband’s house in the second week of January 2016 and

residing in her parents house. There was panchayat held that

also did not yield any result. It is further contended that

respondent is working in KLE Hospital, Belagavi and getting a

salary of Rs.30,000/-. He is also getting a rent of Rs.20,000/-

4

per month. But, he is not paying any amount to the

petitioners who are helpless and they have no source of

income for their livelihood. Hence, she has filed petition

seeking maintenance.

5. Respondent appeared before the trial Court and filed

objection. He has denied the contents of the petition as all

false but admitted the relationship, as he also admitted that

this respondent stayed in his house for about 5 years. It is

his contention that respondent No.2 used to go to her house

frequently and used to stay for months together. He has

denied about dowry harassment a