MANJUSHA W/O SACHIN KULKARNI vs. SACHIN S/O SHRIDHAR KULKARNI

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 23rd day of November 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA R.P.F.C. No.315/2011 Between: 1. Smt. Manjusha, W/o. Sachin Kulkarni, Age: 36 years, Occ: Household work, R/o: 96, Raghavendra Building, Hindwadi, Belgaum-590005. 2. Baby Shreya, D/o. Sachin Kulkarni, Age: 14 years, Occ: Student, R/o: 96, Raghavendra Building, Hindwadi, Belgaum-590005. 3. Baby Shruti, D/o. Sachin Kulkarni, Age: 11 years, Occ: Student, R/o: 96, Raghavendra Building, Hindwadi, Belgaum-590005. …Petitioners (By Sri. Sangram S.Kulkarni, Advocate)

: 2 : A n d : Sri. Sachin, S/o Shridhar Kulkarni, Age: 41 years, Occ: Service, R/o. 131, Godavari Building, Chidambar Nagar, Belgaum-590006. ...Respondent (By Sri. Madanmohan M.Kannur, Advocate) This petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 14.02.2011 in Criminal Misc. No.36/2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Belgaum, dismissing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 14.02.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.36/2008. The Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners herein and has also directed to present a complaint against the 1st petitioner herein. It is against the said order, the petitioners are before this court assailing the said order.

: 3 : 2. In the light of the contentions that have been putforth, a perusal of the order and the factual matrix leading to the case would indicate that the marriage of the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 02.05.1996 and, on this aspect of the matter, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the relationship. The issue, however, is with regard to the petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking maintenance. The order passed by the Court below would indicate that while denying the maintenance to the petitioners herein, the Court below though has discussed in detail with regard to the strained relationship between the 1st petitioner and the respondent herein and, in that regard, has also noticed the fact that the 1st petitioner is a LIC Agent and has sufficient income, has been oblivious to the fact that the two minor children were also the petitioners before the Court below. On noticing this aspect, at the outset, the discussion made on point No.2 would indicate that the

: 4 : court below on taking note of the provision under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to maintenance, has thereafter arrived at the conclusion that the 1st petitioner is an income-tax assessee and has sufficient income. If the Court below had stopped at that, certainly the order passed by the Court below would not have called for interference. However, the Court below on taking note of the same has proceeded to hold that keeping in view Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the income earned by the petitioner is sufficient to maintain herself and the petitioners No.2 and 3. In this regard, it cannot be lost sight that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the 1st petitioner and the respondent. In such circumstance, the Court below was also required to consider this aspect of the matter so as to arrive at the appropriate maintenance that should be granted to them and to direct the respondent to provide for such maintenance. This in itself, in my view, is a serious error and material

: 5 : irregularity committed by the Court below which would call for interference. 3. That apart, the manner in which the Court below has proceeded would indicate that the Court below has not kept in view the plight of the petitioners, but has rather proceeded to punish the petitioner rather than providing succor to them when they were before the Court below seeking for maintenance. Even assuming for a moment that there were certain discrepancies in the contention, the case did not warrant such serious action against the 1st petitioner, in the circumstances, in which she was placed in a position to look after two minor daughters. 4. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order dated 14.02.2011 in its entirety cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The Court below shall now restore Crl. Misc. No.36/2008 on file and thereafter reconsider the same afresh keeping in view the fact that the minor

: 6 : children of the respondents are also before it claiming maintenance. Considering that the parties are before this Court, they shall appear before the Court below on 14.12.2012 as the first date of appearance. The Court below shall thereafter regulate its proceedings and consider and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Sd/- JUDGE Kms