Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
RPFC No. 119 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 119 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI. K. VARADARAJU @ RAJA S/O LATE KUPPASWAMY CHITTIAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YERS, NO.22/39, SAMRAT STREET, TAVUTTUPALYAM, ANDHIYURU VILLAGE, ERODE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 638501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: V. LOKESH S/O K. VARADARAJU AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MATERNAL UNCLE, SRI. S. MADHU, R/AT NO.1246, 4TH MAIN, A BLOCK, KANAKADASNAGARA MYSURU - 570 022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.R.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2018 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.446/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
RPFC No. 119 of 2018
MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in C.Misc. No.446/2015 by which it allowed a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from the petitioner herein from the date of the petition till he attained the age of majority. 2. The respondent is the son of the petitioner. The respondent claimed that soon after he was born on 12.05.2002 at Erode Government Hosptial in Tamilnadu, he was handed over to his next friend (PW.1 – Mr.Madhu) who was requested to take care of him for two months. However, the petitioner failed to turn up and receive back the custody of the
- 3 -
RPFC No. 119 of 2018
respondent. His next friend (Mr. Madhu) was a weaver with a meagre income and had no resources to educate the respondent. The respondent claimed that he was in need of Rs.10,000/- per month for education and his maintenance etc. and the petitioner being a businessman having sufficient funds and business income, had failed to provide for his maintenance and educational needs. Therefore, he filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. This petition was opposed by the petitioner herein who admitted his relationship with the respondent herein and that he had handed over the respondent herein to his next friend, who is none other than his brother-in-law. He claimed that though he was willing to receive back the respondent, his friend was not willing to return him back. He claimed that he was a small time business man and he had no financial capacity to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent herein. 4. Based on these rival contentions, the petition was set down for trial. The next friend of the respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and another witness was examined as
- 4 -
RPFC No. 119 of 2018
PW.2 and documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P47. The petitioner herein was examined as RW.1 and he marked documents as Ex.R1 to R3.
Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the petitioner herein had sufficient business income and that he was also an income tax payer. It also noticed that the house where the petitioner herein was residing belonged to him. It also considered the evidence of the petitioner herein where he admitted that two Firms, namely, Shivashankari Jariwala and Shivashankari Textiles situate at Andhiyur in Tamilnadu were run by him. It also noticed that he had constructed a house of his own. Taking into account all these facts, the Trial Court held that the petitioner herein had the wherewithal to pay maintenance to the respondent herein, till he attained the age of majority. The Trial Court therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as the maintenance payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent herein from the date of the petition till he attained majority.
- 5 -
RPFC No. 119 of 2018
Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no source of income and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in blindly awarding a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as the maintenance payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent herein.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence of the petitioner herein (RW.1) clearly demonstrated his financial capacity. He submitted that the petitioner was an income tax payer and he himself claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. He also admitted that two Firms, namely, Shivashankari Jariwala and Shivashankari Textiles situate at Andhiyur in Tamilnadu were run by him and he was doing business in textiles. Ex.P46 was the invitation card for the house warming ceremony of the house of the petitioner herein. Taking into account all these facts, the Trial Court rightly held that the petitioner has the financial ability to pay the sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent herein. Having regard to the
- 6 -
RPFC No. 119 of 2018
age of the respondent herein and his educational needs and necessities, the Trial Court rightly awarded him maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month payable by the petitioner herein from the date of the petition till he attained majority and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.
Hence, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35