Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

SHIVAMALLAPPA V/S MADEVI & OTHERS, decided on Thursday, November 30, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Karnataka, R.P.F.C. No. 171 of 2017. ] 30/11/2017
Judge(s) : B.V. NAGARATHNA
Advocate(s) : B.S. Nataraja.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

    (Prayer: This RPFC is filed under Sec.19(4) of Family Court Act. against the Judgment Dated 07.10.2006 passed in C.Misc No.148/2005 on the file of the I Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court Bangalore City allowing the petition for maintenance.)1. There is a delay of 3 926 days in filing this revision petition nevertheless I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the matter.2. Petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. Petitioner has assailed order dated 07/10/2006 passed by the I Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court Bangalore City in C.Misc.No.148/2005.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is an ex parte order inasmuch as the petitioner herein did not contest the petition filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) under which respondents sought maintenance. He would submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have now attained majority and they are not entitled to any maintenance. He further submits that since the impugned order is an exparte order and the petitioner was not aware of the order passed against him the arrears of maintenance is huge and the respondents have now sought for recovery of arrears and that an arrest warrant has been issued against the petitioner. In the circumstances petitioner's counsel submits that some protective orders may be made.4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record it is noted that the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2005 and the same was disposed of in the year 2006. There is nearly eleven years delay in filing this revision petition. In the interregnum respondents have sought to recover the arrears of maintenance from the petitioner. 5. On a perusal of the impugned order it indicates that the trial Court has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.800/- only to respondent No.1/wife and only Rs.600/- each per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein till they attain majority from the date of petition. The quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents cannot be construed to be exorbitant or excessive. The said amounts are infact too meagre despite bearing in mind the occupation of the petitioner and his earnings. The arrears have mounted on account of the petitioner not complying with the impugned order for which the petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order and therefore he cannot be saddled with the huge liability at this point of time. But considering the aforesaid parameters of the case and the long delay in filing this revision petition which has been filed only on account of the petitioner being subjected to an arrest warrant issued by the trial Court I find that at this stage any interference with the impugned order would only cause injustice and prejudice to the respondents. Therefore the revision petition is dismissed.6. However having regard to the fact that the petitioner was working as a lift operator and is now working as a Literate Assistant in the Public Works Department Ramanagar liberty is reserved to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.75 000/- towards of arrears of maintenance before the trial Court on or before 06/12/2017. As far as the balance amount is concerned petitioner may seek permission of the trial Court to deposit the same within a further time to be stipulated by the trial Court.7. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions and liberty this revision petition is dismissed.8. In view of the dismissal of the revision petition applications also stand dismissed.