Case Note & Summary
The case involves a revision petition filed by Smt. T. Mangalagowramma and M. Darshini (petitioners) against an order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.No.556/2019. The Family Court had partly allowed a petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) by M. Dhanushree and M. Dhanush (respondents), granting them monthly maintenance and other monetary reliefs. The petitioners, who are the step-mother and sister-in-law of the respondents, challenged the order primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as they resided in Tumkur and Mysuru, while the respondents resided in Mysuru, but the alleged cause of action arose in Tumkur. The High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, heard the revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The court examined the brief facts: the respondents claimed maintenance from the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of late P. Madaiah. The petitioners contended that the Family Court at Mysuru had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as they did not reside within its jurisdiction. The court noted that the Family Court had not properly addressed this jurisdictional issue. Additionally, the court observed that the Family Court had granted maintenance without adequately assessing the income of the petitioners and the needs of the respondents, and without following proper procedure. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable due to jurisdictional error and lack of proper application of mind. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Jurisdiction - The Family Court at Mysuru lacked territorial jurisdiction as the petitioners resided in Tumkur and Mysuru, and the respondents resided in Mysuru, but the cause of action arose in Tumkur - Held that the Family Court failed to consider the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioners (Paras 3-5). B) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Quantum - The Family Court granted maintenance without proper assessment of the income of the petitioners and the needs of the respondents - Held that the order was passed without proper application of mind and was liable to be set aside (Paras 6-8). C) Family Law - Revision - Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 - Scope - The High Court in revision can examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Family Court - Held that the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional error and procedural irregularity (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance petition and whether the impugned order granting maintenance was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.09.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.556/2019 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Jurisdiction of Family Court
- Revision under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act
- 1984
- Procedural compliance
- Quantum of maintenance
