Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5630 (KAR)

PRAKASH S/O GURUPADAPPA HORATTI v. ANURADHA W/O PRAKASH HORATTI

RPFC/100181/2022 · 2025-02-11

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2645 RPFC No. 100181 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100181 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O. GURUPADAPPA HORATTI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC IN KMF C/O. ASANGI GALLI, HOSPET LINE, NEAR GHATAGI, BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE, RABHAKAVI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALOT-587311. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANURADHA W/O. PRAKASH HORATTI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. K.C.RANI ROAD, JAIN COMPLEX GADAG, NOW RESIDING AT MYADAR ONI AT KOPPAL TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, PIN. 583231. 2. KUMARI DANESHWARI D/O. PRAKASH HORATTI, AGE. 7 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER ANURADHA W/O. PRAKASH HORATTI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. K.C.RANI ROAD, JAIN COMPLEX, GADAG NOW RESIDING AT MYDAR ONI AT KOPPAL TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL PIN. 583231. …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2022 PASSED V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:17:51 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2645 RPFC No. 100181 of 2022 BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL IN CRL. MISC.NO.320/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.320/2020, challenging the order dated 26.03.2022 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Koppal (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), allowing the petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.320/2020 that, the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.106/2014 before the Competent Court seeking maintenance which came to be allowed on 07.11.2015 and the respondent-husband was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred RPFC No.100057/2016 and this Court, modified the order of maintenance and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2645 RPFC No. 100181 of 2022 enhanced maintenance to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of maintenance in Criminal Miscellaneous No.320/2020 and same was opposed by the respondent. 4. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 26.03.2022 awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband preferred this petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the reasons assigned by the Family Court for enhancing the maintenance is incorrect and the Family Court has considered that the petitioner is government servant and accordingly enhanced the maintenance which requires to be interference of this Court. 6. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not in dispute - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2645 RPFC No. 100181 of 2022 that the Family Court on earlier occasion in Criminal Miscellaneous No.106/2014 granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioners which came to be modified by this Court in RPFC No.100057/2016 dated 16.09.2016. Thereafter, the Family Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.106/2014 filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., modified the same taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner herein and awarded Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. 7. Having taken note of the reasons assigned at paragraph No.11 of the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3