[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Summet S/O Siddarmayya ... vs Smt Seema W/O Sumeet Gangadharmath on 1 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769
WP No. 102898 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 102898 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMMET S/O. SIDDARMAYYA GANGDHARMATH
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BHMS DOCTOR.
R/O: #460, PLOT NO. 12, LAST BUS STOP,
VITTAL MARG, SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHIT L. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SEEMA W/O. SUMEET GANGADHARMATH,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. C/O. RUDRAYYA HANCHIN, #92, LAXMI GALLI,
MASTAMARDI HUKKERI, BELAGAVI-591124.
2. KUMAR VIDWATH S/O. SUMEET GANGADHARMATH,
AGE: 05 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. C/O. RUDRAYYA HAMCHIN, #92, LAXMI GALLI,
Digitally signed by MASTAMARDI, HUKKERI, BELAGAVI 591124.
RAKESH S
HARIHAR (SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIN
Location: High MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1)
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL, PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI ON
I.A.NO.II IN CRIMINAL.MISC NO.332/2024 AS DIRECTING THE
PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY MONTHLY INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF
RS.4,000/- TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RS.3,000/- TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769
WP No. 102898 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
"A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ, order or direction and quash the order dated
12/02/2025 passed by the 1st Additional, Principal
Judge, Family Court, Belagavi on I.A.No.II in
Criminal. Misc No.332/2024 as directing the
petitioner herein to pay monthly interim
maintenance of rs.4,000/- to respondent no.1 and
rs.3,000/- to Respondent No.2 produced at
Annexure-D, in the interest of justice.
B. Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice and equity."
2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent,
the wife. The marriage between the two takes place on
21.11.2016 and a child is born from the wedlock. It transpires
that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-
wife flounders. On floundering of the relationship, several
proceedings are instituted against each other. One such
proceeding is before the Family Court. The issue in the lis is not
with regard to the merit of the matter before the Family Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769
HC-KAR
The wife files an application seeking interim maintenance. The
concerned Court grants ₹4,000/- interim maintenance to the wife
and ₹3,000/- to the child, in all ₹7,000/-.
3. The petitioner is before the Court on the score that
he is not working and the wife is working. He is prepared to take
care of the child and not the wife. The said submission is
unacceptable. As the Interim maintenance that is granted is not
that exorbitant for the petitioner to project that he is
unemployed and he cannot take care of the wife. If indulgence is
shown, it would run counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Anju Garg and Another Versus Deepak Kumar
Garg1, wherein it is held as under:
"10. This Court had made the above observations
as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case
had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the
objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under
Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also
been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The
Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that
it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide
financial support to the wife and to the minor children.
The husband is required to earn money even by physical
labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his
obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds
mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, it
has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings
is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769
HC-KAR
prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by
providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy
remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a
measure of social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children. It also falls within the
Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article
39 of the Constitution of India.
11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not
only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled
legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in
absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of
the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the
appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to
appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of
warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for
his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for
the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her
evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged
and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court
to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any
evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing
the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court
could not have passed the order believing the oral
submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent.
She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and
subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had
constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with
her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and
neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also
proved by producing the documentary evidence that her
father had paid money to the respondent from time to
time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the
allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were
not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that
money was being paid to the respondent by the father of
the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that
the respondent was demanding money from her father
and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant
respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her
chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son.
There was nothing on record to substantiate his such
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769
HC-KAR
baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also
rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court
granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant
no. 2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly
mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the
appellant-wife.
12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of
Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High
Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The
High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the
impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court
would have remanded the matter back to the High Court
for considering it afresh, however considering the fact
that the matter has been pending before this Court since
the last four years, and remanding it back would further
delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to
pass this order.
13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent, and by the
respondent himself that he has no source of income as his
party business has now been closed, the Court is neither
impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions.
The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to
earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the
minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the
appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard
to the other evidence on record, the Court has no
hesitation in holding that though the respondent had
sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had
failed and neglected to maintain the appellants.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we
deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.
10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above
the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the
Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.
14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent
shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month
to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her
Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire
amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in
the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769
HC-KAR
adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by
him."
4. In the light of the issue standing completely
answered, the petition does not merit any consideration.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: ANB
