Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.C.Shivamurthy vs Smt.B.V.Savithramma on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
MFA No. 4864 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4864 OF 2018 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.C.SHIVAMURTHY
S/O KABBUR CHANNABASAPPA
AGED 63 YEARS
DODDALAGHATTA, SIRIGERE
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577141
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJA K G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B.V.SAVITHRAMMA
W/O K C SHIVAMURTHY
Digitally AGED 52 YEARS
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA 2. MISS. K S RASHMI
Location: D/O K C SHIVAMURTHY
HIGH COURT AGED 25 YEARS
OF
KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/O H BASAVAPURA
HUCHCHAVVANAHALLI POST,
MAYAKONDA HOBLI,
DAVANGERE TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 036
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
MFA No. 4864 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2018 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.126/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE
ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed seeking the following relief.
"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 14.02.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.126/2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, at Davanagere, petition filed by the respondents u/s 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act be rejected and this appeal be allowed with costs throughout."
3. The impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Davanagere on 14.02.2018 has been passed on an -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR application moved under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 19561 by the petitioners - respondents. The aforesaid petition under Section 18 of the Act was partly allowed with cost of ₹1,000/- directing that the petitioners - respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance of ₹1,500/- 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 Section 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 Section 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 ₹700/- to petitioner No.1 and ₹500/- to petitioner No.2. Since the order was not complied with, a petition was filed seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance from the appellant 1 Act -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR 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.
4. It was further stated that petitioner No.2 completed her post graduation in Agricultural Economics. Petitioner No.1 availed loans from relatives and friends in order to pay the fees and hostel accommodation of petitioner No.2. The appellant being the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2 failed to discharge his legitimate duties and to take care of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It was further stated that the land in respect of which a release deed was executed by the appellant having an area of 1 acre 35 guntas is barren land and not irrigated but dependent on monsoons and crops such -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR as ragi and maize grown on the said lands. It was stated that the yields are not so much, so as to maintain the petitioners' daily needs and expenses and more particularly for pursuing the higher education of petitioner No.2. It was alleged that the respondent has agricultural lands and sufficient means and earning more than ₹30,000/- per month. Therefore, maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.1 and ₹20,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.2 was claimed.
5. Objections were filed by the appellant stating that a compromise petition was filed in Crl.Misc.No.136/2005 and the petitioners are enjoying the property as their own property and the appellant has no right and title on that property. The petitioners have got changed the khata of the property in their own names and improved the land and cultivating jowar on the said land. It was stated that the property is now valued in excess of ₹50,00,000/-. It was stated that as the property was given to the petitioners for their life maintenance, the appellant had no obligation or liability to take care of the petitioners. It was stated that the respondent is an agriculturist and having -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.57/P of Oddarasiddanahalli, Chitradurga Taluk. His income being more than ₹30,000/- per month was denied. In the conciliation proceedings, the petitioners were not present, but the respondent - appellant was present and hence the conciliation was not held. In support of the case, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and closed the side. The respondent himself was examined as RW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed the side. The Court recorded the points that arose for its consideration.
"1) Whether the petitioners prove that the respondent has willfully refused and neglected to maintain them in spite of having sufficient means and income?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance amount? If so, what is quantum of maintenance?
3) What order?"
6. The finding on the above points, were as follows:
"Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: Partly in the affirmative and petitioners are entitled for maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each per month from the respondent from the date of petition.
Point No.3: As per the final order, for the following:"-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR
7. For consideration, point Nos.1 and 2 were taken up together. The Court noted that the petitioners had produced the copies of the order sheet, petition and compromise memo in Crl.Misc.No.136/2005 at Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and the respondent has also produced the certified copies of the order, petition, order sheet, compromise memo in Crl.Misc.No.136/2005 at Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and Ex.R5. The Family Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma2, wherein the Court had observed that inspite of the compromise reached between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which is accepted by the Court, a suit under Section 18 of the Act is maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the order made under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a Civil Court. The Supreme Court further referred to the provisions of Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law and such an agreement is void, since the object is unlawful. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., being summary in 2 (2014) 14 SCC 452 : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11800/2013 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR nature and any order passed there under by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act. While considering the aforesaid judgment in the light of the facts of the case, the Family Court observed that though the petitioners made submissions regarding income and earning of the respondent, but did not produce any satisfactory documentary evidence in support of the said contentions. However, the respondent in his objections stated that he is an agriculturist and having 1 acre 30 guntas of land. It was also noted that petitioner No.2 had completed her M.Sc in Agricultural Economics that she is unmarried and has no job. Accordingly, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioners were entitled to maintenance of ₹1,500/- each per month from the appellant from the date of the petition. Holding that the petitioners had proved that the respondent has willfully refused and neglected to maintain them inspite of having sufficient means and that they are entitled for maintenance at the above rate.
8. We have perused the record. Ex.R6 is a deed of release of the aforementioned land having an area of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR 1 acre 35 guntas in favour of petitioner No.1. It is a duly stamped and a registered document. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant has given up all rights to the said land post the compromise and he has no claims there to. Further, the said land is the absolute property of the respondents. The compromise memo is Ex.R5 and it reads as follows:
"COMPROMISE MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES As per the advise of well wishers and relatives of both the parties they entered into compromise and settled the matter.
The respondent agreed to give the schedule land to the petitioners towards their full and final maintenance of their life. The respondent has executed maintenance / release deed in favour of the petitioners before the Sub-Registrar Office, Chitradurga, dated 22.10.2005. The petitioners are entitled to enjoy the suit schedule property. In future the petitioners have no right to claim maintenance from the respondent in any court.
Further the respondent has handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioners on 22.10.2005 along with the standing Ragi and Hurali Crop, which is costs about Rs.12,000/- also the respondent paid Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner on 24.10.2005, in Court.
Thus the petitioners have satisfied with the above settlement towards the maintenance of life and agreed to not to claim any sort of maintenance from the respondent in future.
Under the circumstances it is prayed that the petitioners have no right to claim maintenance in future
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR in respect of the orders passed in Crl.Misc.144/2003. In view of this the present petition may be dismissed as fully satisfied."
9. Thus, the aforesaid compromise memo records that the possession of the property has been handed over to the petitioners by means of the maintenance/release dated 22.10.2005 and an amount of ₹5,000/- has been paid to the petitioner on 24.10.2005 in Court. It is stated that the petitioners are satisfied with the above settlement towards the maintenance of life and agreed not to claim any sort of maintenance from the respondent in future.
10. On the basis of the compromise, a memo dated 24.10.2005 was filed on behalf of the petitioners. This memo also records that in the aforesaid maintenance / release deed, the petitioners have given up all rights to any other property that falls to the share of the appellant.
11. On 25.10.2025, the order sheet of the Family Court reflects that both parties had filed the compromise memo and admitted the contents. The case was closed in view of the compromise memo.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a poor agriculturist having only an area of 1 acre 30 guntas to sustain himself. That land also is rainfed and crops that are similar to the crops being grown on the plot of the respondent are being grown by the petitioners. A completely false statement was made before the Family Court that the appellant has an income of Rs.30,000/- per month. Without noticing that the land itself is worth more than Rs.50,00,000/- and that regular income is being derived by the respondent from the said land, the Family Court has directed payment of Rs.1,500/- each to the wife and to the daughter.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners - respondents on the other hand has opposed the petition and has stated that as reflected from the judgment of the Supreme Court, the settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is not conclusive and a civil right can be enforced by the wife in future also, should the circumstances so merit. It is further stated that the land would not fetch the value as is being suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR no material has been placed to demonstrate the value of that property.
14. It is not the case of the petitioners - respondents that the appellant has property other than 1 acre 30 guntas which she is cultivating and that land which is more than the area of the land available with the appellant was given to the petitioners - respondents by means of the aforesaid maintenance / release deed. It is also not disputed that both the land of the petitioners - respondents and the appellant are similarly situated and rainfed. Respondent No.2 is no longer a minor but has attained the age of 25 years. She has obtained post graduation degree in Agricultural Economics and there was no material on record to demonstrate that whether respondent No.2 had any earning.
15. Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as follows:
"18. Maintenance of wife.―(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance,―
(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her;
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband;
(c) [* * *]
(d) if he has any other wife living;
(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere;
(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;
(g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately.
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion."
16. There is no provision under Section 18 of the Act to provide for maintenance of the daughter. It only provides for maintenance of the wife. For the maintenance and care of the petitioners, it would be unfair to put the appellant to a state of distress by taxing him in excess of what was actually conveyed in terms of the release deed. It is pertinent to mention here
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR that the release deed was executed by the appellant to take care of the petitioners - respondents for their life time since it was over half of the property what came to the share of the appellant. It is common knowledge that the value of land appreciates over a period of time. As development takes place, the value of the land goes on increasing. Under the facts and circumstance, it cannot be said that the aforesaid compromise entered into between the parties would have a life span.
17. Of course, there may be circumstances in particular cases that land may not have that yield or that value in view of the locational and other issues that may exist or crop-up. However, here is not that case.
18. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, in our humble opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the Family Court, may not strictly apply to the present case.
19. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Family Court impugned dated 14.02.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.126/2016 on the file of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB MFA No. 4864 of 2018 HC-KAR Judge, Family Court, Davanagere, is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23