Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: AND
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM RPFC NO.200064/2022 BETWEEN ASHOKREDDY PATIL S/O BASAVARAJAPPA PATIL, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O ANAKASURU VILLAGE, POST AIKKURU, TQ. WADAGERI DIST YADGIRI ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND SHASHIKALA PATIL @ CHANDRAKALA W/O ASHOKREDDY PATIL AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O PRESENTLY AT H,NO. 1-11-66/1H/10 DOLLORS COLONY, RAICHUR …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE REVISION PETITIONER, PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT TO SECURE THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.08.2022 IN CRL. MISC. NO.206/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT RAICHUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
2 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The captioned revision petition is filed by the husband feeling aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, wherein, the respondent/wife is awarded maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. The husband feeling aggrieved by the order of maintenance has filed the present revision petition. 2. The respondent/wife filed a petition before the Family Court alleging that petitioner/husband has neglected her. The respondent/wife further claims that the petitioner/husband and his family members were often using abusive language and she was physically tortured and harassed on the premise that she is unable to give birth to children. The respondent/wife contended that she has studied up to 10th standard while the petitioner/husband is working
3 as Assistant Professor in Government College and drawing salary of Rs.1,30,000/- per month. Hence, claims maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. 3. The petitioner/husband on receipt of notice contested the proceedings by filing objections. The husband has stoutly denied the entire averments made in the petition and also denied that he has contracted second marriage. 4. The respondent/wife and petitioner/husband have led oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. 5. The Family Court on meticulous examination of the evidence on record, more particularly, Ex.P7, the Family Court found that the petitioner/husband is drawing gross salary of Rs.1,20,416/- per month and his net salary is
4 Rs.79,797/- per month. Therefore, the Family Court proceeded to award maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. The said order is under challenge. 6. Respondent/wife has placed on record the clinching evidence indicating that respondent/husband is working as a Assistant Professor in a Government college. Though Family Court has taken the net salary of Rs.79,797/- per month, however, from perusal of paragraph No.17 of the impugned judgment, this Court would find that a sum Rs.10,000/- towards income tax and Rs.200/- professional tax is deducted. The other deductions are all savings. Therefore, even otherwise, the Family Court erred in taking the net salary of Rs.79,797/- per month. Except compulsory deductions, the take home salary is more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Having regard to the status and financial capacity of the petitioner/husband, the
5 maintenance awarded by the Family Court appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under challenge. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of main petition, pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- JUDGE Srt