Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rudrappa, filed a petition under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Family Court, Dharwad, seeking modification of an earlier maintenance order passed by the JMFC Court in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 dated 24.12.2008, which directed him to pay Rs.1,000/- each to his two minor sons, Manjunath and Vishwanath. The petitioner contended that the mother of the respondents, Smt. Vijaya, had acquired a non-agricultural developed site with a building and was earning sufficiently, thus justifying a reduction or cancellation of maintenance. The Family Court dismissed the petition with costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to prove a change in circumstances. The court observed that the mere acquisition of property by the mother does not constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to modify the maintenance order, as the father's obligation to maintain his minor children is primary. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Family Court's order and imposing costs.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Modification of Maintenance Order - Section 127 Cr.PC - Change in Circumstances - The petitioner father sought modification of a maintenance order under Section 127 Cr.PC, alleging that the mother of the minor children had acquired a non-agricultural site with a building and was earning sufficiently. The Family Court dismissed the petition. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove any change in circumstances warranting modification. The mere acquisition of property by the mother does not automatically absolve the father of his obligation to maintain his minor children. The petition was dismissed with costs. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner father is entitled to modification of the maintenance order under Section 127 Cr.PC on the ground that the mother of the minor children has acquired sufficient means to maintain them.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Family Court's order dismissing the modification petition with costs.
Law Points
- Modification of maintenance order requires proof of change in circumstances
- Section 127 Cr.PC
- burden of proof on petitioner
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (01) 31
Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund (for petitioner), Sri. S.S. Hattikatagi (for respondents)
Rudrappa S/o. Virupaxappa Hosur
Manjunath S/o. Rudrappa Hosur and Vishwanath S/o. Rudrappa Hosur (minors, rep. by natural guardian mother Smt. Vijaya)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Revision petition against dismissal of petition for modification of maintenance order under Section 127 Cr.PC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought modification of maintenance order to reduce or cancel maintenance payable to his minor sons.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the mother of the respondents had acquired property and was earning sufficiently, constituting a change in circumstances.
Previous Decisions
JMFC Court in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 dated 24.12.2008 directed petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- each to respondents. Family Court dismissed petitioner's modification petition under Section 127 Cr.PC on 11.09.2014.
Issues
Whether the petitioner proved a change in circumstances warranting modification of the maintenance order under Section 127 Cr.PC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the mother of the respondents had acquired a non-agricultural developed site with a building and was earning sufficiently, thus the maintenance order should be modified.
Respondents contended that the petitioner failed to prove any change in circumstances and that the father's obligation to maintain minor children continues.
Ratio Decidendi
The mere acquisition of property by the mother of minor children does not constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to modify a maintenance order under Section 127 Cr.PC. The father's obligation to maintain his minor children is primary and not automatically absolved by the mother's financial status.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad in Crl. Misc. No.7/2012 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came to be dismissed with costs.
The petitioner filed a petition under section 127 of Cr.PC before the Family Court for the modification of the order passed by the learned JMFC Court in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 dated 24.12.2008 contending that the mother of the respondents Smt. Vijaya had filed a petition for maintenance before the JMFC Court, Dharwad in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002 and the same was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.PC before the Family Court, Dharwad (Crl. Misc. No.7/2012) seeking modification of the maintenance order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the JMFC Court in Crl. Misc. No.283/2002. The Family Court dismissed the petition with costs on 11.09.2014. The petitioner then filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (R.P.F.C. No.100187/2014), which was dismissed on 06.01.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC): 127
- Family Courts Act, 1984: 19(4)
