[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sahana vs Sri. Ravi Kumar. M. M on 27 March, 2026
-1-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.124 OF 2024
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.219 OF 2025
IN RPFC No.124/2024
BETWEEN:
MR. RAVI KUMAR M.M.
S/O MADE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE
BILEKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHANACHANDRA P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SAHANA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
W/O RAVI KUMAR M.M.
R/AT NO.18, RANGANATH NILAYA
GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
4TH MAIN ROAD,
NEAR KRISHNA APARTMENT,
BABA COLONY, J.P. NAGAR
7TH PHASE
BANGALORE- 560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.09.2023 PASSED
IN CRL.MISC NO.758/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR
MAINTENANCE.
IN RPFC NO. 219/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAHANA
W/O RAVI KUMAR, M.M.
AGED 22 YEARS,
NOW RESIDING AT NO.S-2,
SECOND FLOOR,
NEAR KUSI APARTMENT,
V CROSS, PUTTENAHALLI,
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-78.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAVI KUMAR. M. M.
S/O. MADE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O. MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE
BILEKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK-571 103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHANACHANDRA P.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.09.2023
PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.758/2022 ON THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT
BENGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.
-3-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
THESE REVISION PETITIONS FAMILY COURT HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2026
AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
RPFC No.124/2024 is filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Court Act, by the respondent/husband praying to
set aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 passed by
the Court of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court at Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.758/2022, partly
allowing the petition filed by petitioner/wife under Section
125 of Cr.P.C.
RPFC No.219/2025 is filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Court Act, by the petitioner/wife praying to modify
the order passed by the III Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court at Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.758/2022 and
enhance the maintenance amount granted by the Family
Court.
-4-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
2. For the convenience of reference, the parties will
be referred to as petitioner/wife and respondent/husband
as per their ranking before the Family Court.
Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of these
petitions are as under:
3. The marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized
with respondent/husband on 06.03.2022 at Shri.Prasanna
Anjaneya Swamy Kalyana Mantapa, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore
as per Hindu rites and both of them lived together in
husband's house for a short period. They have no issues
from the wedlock. From the very first day, husband and
his family members were harassing and ill-treating
petitioner/wife. Husband was cruel towards her and she
was made to work like a slave and had to cook food for
more than ten members from the very first day of their
marriage. Her mobile phone was broken to prevent her
from talking to her parents. Wife suffered severe infection
in private parts and even though advised by doctor not to
have physical contact with husband, husband forced her
claiming that he had married to sleep with her in night and
-5-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
do house-hold chores in the day time. It is alleged that
unable to bear physical and mental cruelty, wife tried to
commit suicide on 02.05.2022. It is stated that wife's
parents are working in private firms. Husband is a
lordlord having house, two sites and two acres of
agricultural land in Hunsur Taluk and growing commercial
crops like ginger and coconut and also having showroom in
the name of M/s.Rain Growth Irrigation and Water
Solution in Hunsur town. He is also having two shops and
two big godowns. It is further stated that
respondent/husband is having agricultural income of more
than Rs.10,00,000/- per crop from ginger cultivation and
having income of Rs.50,000/- once in two months from
coconut garden. In all, husband is having income of more
than Rs.2,50,000/- per month from the business, rental,
agricultural and commercial crops.
4. It is averred that the parents of the
respondent/husband suppressed that he is a habitual
drunkard, very short tempered and cruel man. The family
members of respondent/husband used to harass her by
-6-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
demanding dowry in the form of silver articles, reputed
branded wrist watch and gold ornaments. Further, they
threatened to kill her if her parents fail to meet their
demands. On 10.06.2022, wife's parents went to Hunsur
and brought her to their house. It is alleged that wife is
not working and the husband failed to pay for her
maintenance to meet her basic needs. The
respondent/husband also filed petition under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Addl. Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Hunsur in M.C.No.39/2022 to harass her and her
family members and to escape from paying maintenance.
5. In spite of service of notice, the
respondent/husband did not appear and was placed
exparte and case was posted for petitioner/wife's
evidence. The petitioner got herself examined as PW.1
and got marked eight documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and
closed her side of evidence. After hearing the counsel
appearing for the petitioner and going through the
documents produced, the Family Court allowed the petition
filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
-7-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
and directed the respondent/husband to pay maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife, from the date of
filing of petition. Further, RPFC No.124/2024 was filed
before this Court by the respondent/wife and maintenance
amount was reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per
month payable on or before 10th of every month, but
respondent/husband failed to pay any maintenance
amount.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife in RPFC
No.219/2025 contended that the respondent/husband
used to harass her physically and mentally and unable to
bear the torture she left the matrimonial home and was
residing with her parents, who are not in good financial
condition and working in private firms. The husband failed
to pay maintenance amount of even Rs.6,000/- p.m., fixed
as per the order passed by this Court in RPFC
No.124/2024 while granting stay of the order of the Family
Court. It is further contended that that the petitioner/wife
has filed her affidavit by disclosing her assets and
liabilities and it clearly shows that she has no independent
-8-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
income. Relying upon the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, it is contended that the
Family Court failed to take into consideration the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court while fixing the
quantum of compensation.
7. Learned counsel husband in RPFC No.124/2024
contended that the Family Court has grossly violated the
procedure contemplated under Section 126(2) read with
Section 274 Cr.P.C., at the time of recording evidence of
PW.1. Therefore, evidence of PW.1 recorded by way of
affidavit in lieu of chief-examination is illegal and there is
no evidence in the eye of law. The Family Court has
marked Ex.P3-photo without negative, which is not
permissible according to Indian Evidence Act. It is further
contended that the wife has suppressed the fact that she
is hale and healthy and studied upto 2nd PUC and able to
work and maintain herself. Further, her parents are also
working in private firms. Therefore, husband prays to set
aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court in
-9-
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
Crl.Misc.No.758/2022, partly allowing the petition and
ordering to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.
8. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner/husband
as well as respondent/wife and perused the records.
9. The respondent did not appear before the Family
Court in spite of receiving notice through RPAD and did not
participate in the proceedings. It is observed by the Family
Court that considering the present cost of living and the
standard of living of husband, standard of living of both
the parties has been decided by the Family Court and a
sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded as monthly
maintenance and partly allowed the petition. It has been
proved and established before the Family Court that the
respondent neglected and failed to maintain his wife. The
evidence of the petitioner regarding the property owned
by the respondent and his earnings remain undisputed.
The petitioner has not produced any documents to prove
the earnings of the respondent except photograph marked
as Ex.P3. Chief-examination of PW.1 was recorded
through affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. It has been
- 10 -
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
observed that an exparte order was passed by the Family
Court without giving opportunity to husband to adduce his
evidence and produce documents.
10. Under the circumstances, as the respondent was
placed exparte before the Family Court and order has been
passed in his absence, fair opportunity has to be given to
both the parties to represent their case. Therefore, the
matter has to be remitted back subject to payment of cost
of Rs.20,000/- payable by husband to wife and the
husband shall be permitted to file his statement of
objections. Both the parties shall be permitted to file
objections to the affidavits of assets and liabilities. It is
directed that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324, shall be followed by the Family Court.
11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
- 11 -
RPFC No. 124 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025
ORDER
i. RPFC No.219/2025 filed by wife is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by husband to wife.
ii. RPFC No.124/2024 filed by the husband is allowed.
iii. Cost of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid by husband to wife and file a memo along with proof before the Family Court.
iv. The order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Family Court, Davangere in Crl. Misc. No.167/2022, is set aside. v. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court to consider the same afresh and to pass orders.
vi. Parties shall not seek any adjournments and should co-operate with the Court in disposal of the matter time bound.
vii. Both parties are directed to appear either in person or through their respective counsels
- 12 -
RPFC No. 124 of 2024C/W RPFC No. 219 of 2025 before the Family Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order without further notice.
viii. Family Court shall give opportunity to both the parties to file objections to the affidavits of assets and liabilities respectively and shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV