Ravindranath Srihari Kuthuru vs Master Jagat Surya

B. Veerappa, J. - The petitioner, who is the father of the respondent, is before this Court against the order dated 1st July, 2015 passed in C.Misc. 131/2015 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru awarding the monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-per month from the date of the petition till the child (his son) attains majority which includes education expenses of the child. He was also directed to pay all the arrears within two months and also the future maintenance regularly without fail.

It is the case of the petitioner herein that the respondent-his son had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the family Court through his mother against him, praying to direct him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.25,00/- including his educational expenses to him until he attains majority etc., contending that the respondent and his mother are husband and wife having married as per the Hindu rites and customs on 20.3.2011 at Swagath Function Hall, Vasavi Colony, R. K. Puram, Hyderabad, Telangana. He was bom on 18.3.2012 at Aruna Hospital, Hyderbad, Telangana. He is the biological son of the petitioner and he has been deserted and neglected by him since 10.10.2013. The petitioner herein is currently employed as Manager in MICE Sales, Thomas Cook India Ltd., M.G. Road, Bengaluru and getting the salary of Rs.65,000/- per month. The petitioner has the capacity to main-tain the minor respondent herein, but he has refused to maintain him except paying paltry sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the month of December, 2014 and he has not made any payment. The respondent herein requires at least Rs.25,000/- per month for his maintenance himself and his mother-wife of the petitioner herein, who is now maintaining him. Her salary is insufficient to meet the same. His mother is paying EMIs of Rs.33,717/- to the HDFC Housing Ltd., Bengaluru towards home loan which stands jointly in her name and in the name of the petitioner in respect of the loan taken by them for purchase of the house at Bengaluru, etc.

In spite of service of notice, the present petitioner herein/father, who is respondent before the Family Court did not appear and hence, he was placed ex parte.

Based on the pleadings of the petitioner, the Family Court has framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance as sought?

(ii) What Order?"

The mother and natural guardian of the respondent herein were examined as RW. 1 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to 9. She has not been cross-examined, nor the petitioner has lead any evidence.

The Family Court on considering the entire material on record has recorded a finding that the respondent herein is entitled for maintenance as sought for. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 1st July, 2015 awarded a maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- till he attains majority which includes his educational expenses directing the petitioner herein-father to pay all the arrears within two months and also future maintenance regularly without fail, against which, the present revision petition is tiled.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

Smt. Shobha Bhavikatti, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is an ex parte order without serving any notice on him and she relied upon the postal share of the Family Court dated 17.4.2015 and also the acknowledgment stating that it is not the signature of the petitioner and therefore, requested that an opportunity be given to the revision petitioner to put forth his case.

Sri. Arjun Rego, learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and fairly submitted that if the petitioner wants an opportunity to urge his contentions before the Family Court, then he shall pay the maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month and all arrears up to date. The said fair submission is placed on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present revision petition is:

"Whether the petitioner has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.

It is an undisputed fact that the marriage between the petitioner and his wife-mother of the respondent i.e., Smt. Tejomayee Vaali was solemnized on 20.3.2011 and it is also an undisputed fact that out of their wedlock, the respondent was born on 18.3.2012. It is the specific case before the Family Court that the petitioner-father of the respondent/child is working as Manager in MICE Sales, Thomas Cook India Ltd., M.G. Road, Bengaluru getting the salary of Rs.65,000/- per month and it is his obligation to maintain his son till he attains the majority. It is the specific case of the petitioner before this Court that he was not given an opportunity to contest the matter before the Family Court, but para-4 of the impugned order clearly states that the petitioner has not appeared before the Court in spite of service of notice. Hence, he was placed ex parte.

Though the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner disputed the service of notice, relying upon the shara (sic) as well as the acknowledgment, without adverting to the arguments advanced with regard to service of notice, in view of the fair submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is suffice to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case before the Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on the ground of fair submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that an opportunity be given to petitioner subject to payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- as awarded by the Family Court.

For the reasons stated above, the issue raised in the present revision petition is answered in the affirmative holding that the petitioner is entitled to contest the matter before the Family Court by filing objections and producing relevant documents. In order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, this is a fit case to allow this revision petition subject to payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1st July, 2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh adjudication between the parties in accordance with law subject to the condition that the petitioner-father of the respondent shall go on paying the monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- till the disposal of C. Misc 131/2015 before the family Court and shall pay all the arrears of maintenance within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

However, the Family Court shall decide the matter with reference to the material both oral and documentary evidence taking into consideration of the paramount interest of the petitioner-father and respondent-minor child as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the ) observations made by this Court.

The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court without any notice on 18.11.2016.