IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL BETWEEN:
R.P.F.C.NO.164 OF 2019 DR.PAVANKUMAR H.PATIL S/O SRI H.S.PATIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE OPP:TELEPHONE EXCHANGE RANEBENNUR – 581 115 HAVERI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRINIVAS B.S., ADV. FOR SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADV.) AND SMT.NIVEDITA MALLIKARJUN MELLIHALLI W/O DR.PAVAN KUMAR H.PATIL AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O NO.177, SIDDALINGESHWARA NAGAR BEHIND NIRMITHI KENDRA BOGADI II STAGE (NORTH) MYSURU – 570 026 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHOWDA REDDY C., ADV. FOR SRI DINESH RAO N., ADV.) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.158/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CPC FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of Counsel appearing on both side, taken up for disposal.
The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 27.11.2014 at Ranebennur. It appears, some disputes arose between the parties. Respondent is residing with her parents at Mysuru. She filed C.Misc.158/2019 before the IV Addl.Prl.Family Judge, Mysuru under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She claimed that she has no source of her own income and the petitioner despite having sufficient income has neglected to maintain her. Notice of the said petition was not served on the petitioner.
2. The trial court recorded the evidence of respondent–wife and allowed the petition awarding maintenance of Rs.30,000/-per month. The petitioner is before this court challenging the said order on the ground that at the relevant time, he was working in United Kingdom and no notice was served on him.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that he is residing in United Kingdom at the relevant time was evident from Ex.P8-VISA produced by the respondent-wife in the maintenance proceedings.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner filed Police complaint against the respondent’s parents in May 2019, therefore, his contention that he was not residing in India cannot be accepted.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent had also filed C.Misc.No.14/2019 before the J.M.F.C.-III Court, Mysuru, under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming monetary relief, etc. In that case also, notice was not served and exparte interim relief was granted awarding interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner challenged the said order before the II Addl.Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Criminal Appeal No.242/2019 on the same ground viz., non-service of notice on him.
6. Admittedly, the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.242/2019 set aside the order passed by the Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the ground that the notice was not served.
7. The respondent has not produced any material to show that at the relevant time, the petitioner was in India. Under the circumstances, service of notice on petitioner was not sufficient and the interest of justice requires that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 10.06.2019 in C.Misc.158/2019 passed by the IV Addl.Prl.Family Judge, Mysuru, is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded to the trial court for disposal after giving opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law.
To avoid further delay, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 06.01.2020 without any further notice.
The trial court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of such appearance of parties.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-