K.C. SHIVAMURTHY Vs. B.V. SAVITHRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal has been filed seeking the following relief.

(3.) The impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Davanagere on 14/2/2018 has been passed on an application moved under Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 by the petitioners - respondents. The aforesaid petition under Sec. 18 of the Act was partly allowed with cost of Rs.1,000.00 directing that the petitioners - respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance of Rs.1,500.00 each per month from the date of the petition. Petitioner - Respondent No. 1 is the wife and the petitioner - respondent No.2 is the daughter of the appellant. The case of the petitioners - respondents in their petition under Sec. 18 of the Act was that the petitioner No.1 came to know that the appellant had secretly entered into a marriage with another lady during the continuance of their marriage. The petitioners were forced to stay separately and had approached the Family Court, Davanagere and filed a petition under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.144/2004. The petition was contested and came to be allowed on 29/10/2004 granting maintenance to the petitioners - respondents at the rate of Rs.700.00 to petitioner No.1 and Rs.500.00 to petitioner No.2. Since the order was not complied with, a petition was filed seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance from the appellant Act in Crl.Misc. No.136/2005 in the Family Court, Davanagere. The respondent appeared before the Court, but being unable to pay the arrears of maintenance to the petitioners - respondents agreed to execute a release deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy.No.13/1A of Chikkalaghatta Village, Hireguntanur Hobli, Chitradurga District and accordingly, the appellant executed the release deed in favour of petitioner No.1 on 22/10/2005. In view of the aforesaid, a compromise was entered into between the parties and as such, on 25/10/2005, the case was closed.