w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Shivamallappa v/s Madevi & Others

    R.P.F.C. No. 171 of 2017

    Decided On, 30 November 2017

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: B.S. Nataraja, Advocate. For the Respondents: ----------

Judgment Text

(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

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

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.

Already A Member?