Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Manju vs Smt Sumithra

MANJU vs Smt Sumithra

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Feb 05, 2024
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1907766

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RPFC/57/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MANJU

Respondent

Smt Sumithra

Excerpt

.....as husband,wife and child is not disputed. on certain allegations, the respondents were constrained to live separately and thus, filed maintenance petition under section 125 of cr.p.c. and the family court has granted maintenance of rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent no.1 - wife from the date of petition and rs.2,500/- per month each to respondent nos.2 and 3 - sons till they attain majority.4. from the evidence on record i.e., exs.p.1 and 2 -photographs, the petitioner has married second wife and is not disputed by the petitioner - husband. this is the reason for the respondents to reside separately from the petitioner - husband. it is stated in the evidence of pw-1 i.e., respondent no.1 that the petitioner - husband is owning a provision store and 4 acres of land. hence, the family court has considered that the petitioner - husband -4- is financially viable person and granted maintenance to the respondents as above stated. therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the family court is correct in granting the maintenance amount. thepetition is devoid of merits calling interference to the orderpassed by the family court. hence, petition is hereby dismissed for devoid of merits. sd/- judge mh/- list no.: 1 sl no.: 7 ct: bhk

Full Judgment

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 57 OF 2017 BETWEEN: MANJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O JAVARAIAH, R/AT NO.86, GAMANA HALLI, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438. …PETITIONER (SRI. MANJU - PETITIONER COURT NOTICE SERVED) AND:

1. SMT. SUMITHRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, Digitally signed by JAI W/O MANJU, JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SHREKANTH M, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,

3. RAKESH M, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT. SUMITHRA, THE RESPONDENT NO.1. -2- RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.1534, 7TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.N. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED IN C. MISC NO.264/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, I ADDL. PRL. FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the husband calling in question the order of maintenance granted in C.Mis.No.264/2015 dated 09.11.2016 passed by the I Additional Principal Family Court at Mysuru, seeking to reduce the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court. -3-

2. Inspite of service of Court notice to the petitioner - husband, he has remained absent. The case is considered on merits at the admission stage.

3. The relationship between the parties as husband,

wife and child is not disputed. On certain allegations, the respondents were constrained to live separately and thus, filed maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 - wife from the date of petition and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 - sons till they attain majority.

4. From the evidence on record i.e., Exs.P.1 and 2 -

photographs, the petitioner has married second wife and is not disputed by the petitioner - husband. This is the reason for the respondents to reside separately from the petitioner - husband. It is stated in the evidence of PW-1 i.e., respondent No.1 that the petitioner - husband is owning a provision store and 4 acres of land. Hence, the Family Court has considered that the petitioner - husband -4- is financially viable person and granted maintenance to the respondents as above stated. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court is correct in granting the maintenance amount. The

petition is devoid of merits calling interference to the order

passed by the Family Court. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed for devoid of merits. Sd/- JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2024 Same Parties MANJU vs Smt Sumithra Same Judge Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales