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

Praveen v/s Deepa

    RPFC No. 200069 of 2017

    Decided On, 07 March 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi


    For the Petitioner: Arunkumar Amargundappa, Advocate. For the Respondent: Respondent Served.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, praying to allow the said revision petition by setting aside judgment and order Dated 07.04.2017, passed in Crl.Misc.No. 339/2016 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayapur and consequently dismiss the petition filed by the respondent herein.)

1. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

2. The petitioner/husband has filed present revision petition against the order dated 07.04.2017 made in Crl.Misc.No.339/2016 allowing the petition in part awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent/wife from the date of petition till further orders.

3. It is the case of the respondent/wife before the Family Court that, her marriage was performed with respondent on 21.04.2015 at Shree Kalameshwar Temple of Saidapur Dharwad as per the Hindu Uppar Community Customs and Traditions. After the marriage the petitioner stayed with the respondent

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

at Vijayapur. Thereafter she went to the house of respondent at Dharwad. She led happy marital life with the respondent about two months. Thereafter respondent and his family members started to ill-treat the petitioner and demanded to bring additional dowry. It was contended that respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking alcohol and womanizing. Further contended that respondent is having an illicit relationship with a lady Madhu. It is further case of the petitioner that, after two months of the marriage the respondent has abused, assaulted and ill-treated the petitioner and dragged out her from his house with a demand to bring additional dowry.

4. Thereafter respondent came to her sister's house at Vijayapur. The petitioner has waited for few days hoping that respondent may improve in his behavior, but it went in vain. Petitioner further contended that respondent is the adoptive son having 13 acres of land at Vijayapur. The adoptive father of the respondent retired from his service while he was serving in Archeological Department at Vijayapur. The genitive father of the respondent was working as Mestri and the respondent is having sufficient source of income has refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner has prayed for awarding Rs.8,