PRIYANKA Vs. KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners above named had filed a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) before the Family Court, Davanagere seeking maintenance from the father of petitioner No. I and the husband of petitioner No. 2 and the same having been granted directing the respondent, who is no more, to pay a sum of Rs. 1080.00 each to petitioners 1 and 2, from the date of petition, the same was not paid. Therefore, the petitioners had to file a petition under section 128 of the Crimial P.C. seeking recovery of maintenance. A notice having been ordered to the father of petitioner No. 1, he dodged the notice and ultimately, it was served on the nephew of the father of the petitioner. In spite of knowledge of the petition, since arrears of maintenance was not paid, the family court had passed an order issuing fine levy warrant and attachment of property bearing Survey No. 19/P3 of Igoor village, measuring 2, acres 8 guntas, standing in the name of the father of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, petitioner No. 1 is said to have filed a suit in OS No. 339/2004 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Davanagere, as against her father seeking partition and separate possession. There was a final decree in the said suit as on 21.6.2008, wherein the very property allotted to petitioner No. 1 including the land bearing Survey No. 19/P3 measuring 2, acres 8 guntas, to the extent of 1 acre, 4 guntas of Igoor village had been allotted to petitioner No. 1. In the meanwhile, in view of the fine levy warrant having been issued by the family court, an attachment was issued in respect of the said land bearing survey No. 19/P3 to the Deputy Commissioner, who was directed to effect suitable entry and also issue a fine levy warrant to recover the amount as the liability against such property.

(3.) The father of respondent No. 1 is said to have preferred a revision petition before this court in RPFC 143/2005 as against the order granting maintenance, which was dismissed as on 28.6.2006. Respondent No. 3 had informed the family court of a letter received from the Tahsildar, Davanagere Taluk dated 15.11.2006, informing that an amount of Rs. 30,240.00 was received and deposited in CD Account and that full amount was secured from the case.