IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR RPFC No.170 OF 2018 BETWEEN Sri. C.Kumar, S/o. Sri. Chandre Gowda, Aged about 31 years, R/at No.69, 3rd Cross, Manjunath Colony, 23rd Main, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru-560078.
(By Sri. G.B.Nandeesh Gowda, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. T.L.Jyothi, W/o. Sri. C.Kumar, Aged about 25 years, 2. Kum. Namana, D/o. Sri. C.Kumar, Aged about 47 years, Since minor represented By her natural guardian Mother respondent no.1 Both are residing at C/o. Sri. T.S.Lokesh Gowda, Thoranamavu Village, Kuduvalli Post, …Petitioner Chikkamagaluru Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District-577101.
(By Sri. Girish B Baladare, Advocate for R1, (R2 is minor represented by R1)) …Respondents This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 13.06.2018 passed in Cr.Mis.No.73/2017 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, partly allowing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
This RPFC coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Chickamagalur in Crl. Misc.73/2017. The impugned order shows that the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to his wife and Rs.2,000/- to his daughter. The case of the petitioner is that he was not served with notice of the maintenance petition and thereby he was denied of an opportunity to contest the petition. Para 4 of the impugned order shows that notice issued to the petitioner through the court was returned un-served and thereafter notice was sent to him through registered post acknowledgment due. It was returned with a shara “Not Claimed”. The court below held the service sufficient and placed the petitioner exparte and proceeded to pass the impugned order after holding an enquiry. It is now argued by the petitioner’s counsel that respondent gave wrong address of the petitioner and actually he was not served with notice. Rental agreement is produced to show the correct address of the petitioner. In this rental agreement, the petitioner’s address is shown as No.69, Manjunath Colony, 3rd Cross, 24th Main, J.P. Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bangalore – 560078. This is not the address given in the maintenance petition. Taking note of this, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed, but the petitioner needs to be subjected to cost and he should also be directed to pay maintenance as awarded by the Family Court till disposal of the petition on merits. Therefore the following:
i. Petition is allowed ii. The order dated 13.06.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.73/2017 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Family Court, Chickmagalur for disposal according to law.
iii. The petitioner has to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent and he shall continue to pay the maintenance awarded by the Family Court till disposal of the petition.
iv. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Chickmagalur on 23rd September, 2019.
SD/- JUDGE sd