Revision Petition Family Court No. 133 of 2006. Case: Mallayya Vs Smt. Mahadevi and Anr.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Revision Petition Family Court No. 133 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, Adv. and For Respondents: Vijaya R. Hanmantgad, Adv. for Respondents-1 and 2 |
| Judges | Arali Nagaraj, J. |
| Issue | Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 20(3); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 125(1), 127; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC) - Section 488 |
| Citation | 2009 (2) KarLJ 130, 2008 (4) KCCR 2444 |
| Judgement Date | June 24, 2008 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
Arali Nagaraj, J.
-
The petitioner herein, who is the husband of the respondent 1 and father of the respondent 2, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 12-6-2006 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 22 of 2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, enhancing the maintenance payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent 1 from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month and from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 800/- per month to respondent 2.
-
The brief facts of the case is as under:
(a) Respondents 1 and 2 respectively being the wife and son of the petitioner, filed maintenance petition in Cri. Misc. No. 37 of 1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basavana Bagewadi, District Bijapur. The said petition came to be allowed and a sum of Rs. 300/- per month and another sum of Rs. 200/- per month was awarded in favour of respondents 1 and 2 respectively towards their maintenance. Thereafter, the respondents filed a petition under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for enhancement of the said maintenance. After considering the legal contentions of the petitioner and respondents on the question of enhancement of maintenance, the Family Court, passed the impugned order, enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of respondent 1 and Rs. 200/- to Rs. 800/- per month in favour of respondent 2. The correctness of the said order is challenged in this revision petition.
-
Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties. During the course of argument, Sri Ashok Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will restrict the revision petition insofar as the impugned order relates to the enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 800/- per month in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is admittedly a major son. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of C. Byraiah v. B. Ansuya and Anr. 1999(5)KarLJ181 and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba and Ors. and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim 1997CriLJ3972 contended that as provided under Section 125(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C., a son, after attaining majority, would not be entitled to claim any maintenance from his father.
-
As against the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Vijaya R. Hanmantgad the learned Counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order, submitted, placing reliance on the decision of High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manjulata and Ors. 1 (2001) DMC 605 (Raj.) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Ors. 1970CriLJ522 ', that since the 2nd respondent son, who was minor and was unable to maintain himself as on the date of order of maintenance passed in Cri. Misc. No. 37 of 1992, continued to be unable to maintain himself even after attaining the age of majority, the Family Court is quite justified in enhancing the amount of maintenance payable to him by the petitioner father. She further contended that in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent-son was granted maintenance when he...
To continue reading
Request your trial