Karnataka High Court
Shri Fakeergouda @ Prakashgouda S/O ... vs Smt. Nirmala W/O Late Prashant Uppin ... on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
RPFC No. 100234 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100234 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI. FAKEERGOUDA @ PRAKASHGOUDA
S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTIONER,
R/O. PLOT NO. 1127, SAHYADRI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI- 590019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI F.S. PATIL, PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
SMT. NIRMALA
W/O FAKEERAGOUDA @ PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. NO. 72, AKASH PARK, KESHWAPUR,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI- 580023,
DIST. DHARWAD.
VN ...RESPONDENT
BADIGER
(BY SRI U.G. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)
Dharwad Bench THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
16:18:39 +0530 ACT, IS PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,HUBBALLI IN CRIM. MISC. NO. 343/2015
ORDER DATED 25.10.2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 1ST
FEBRUARY, 2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the respondent -
husband challenging the order dated 25.10.2023 in
Crl.Misc.No.343/2015 on the file of the I Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court at Hubballi1 awarding
maintenance to the respondent herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner - wife before the
Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner and
respondent was held on 12.04.2015 at Mahabaleshwar
Temple, Belagavi. It is stated in the petition that the
parents of the petitioner - wife gave Rs.50,000/- towards
marriage expenses to the respondent - husband and also
Rs.15,000/- towards purchasing household utensils and
that apart 3.5 tolas of gold (approximately 35 grams) to
the respondent - husband. It is the case of the petitioner -
Hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
wife that the petitioner had married one Prashant V Uppin
and her husband died on 27.01.2007 and thereafter the
petitioner married the respondent.
4. It is also case of the petitioner that the
respondent married one Smt.Smita, resident of Dharwad
and the said marriage was dissolved and thereafter the
petitioner married the respondent on 12.04.2015. It is the
case of the petitioner - wife that, the respondent -
husband was inhumanly beating the petitioner - wife and
suspecting the character of the petitioner - wife and also
not providing food and medicine to the petitioner - wife
and as such the petitioner - wife has left the matrimonial
home on 24.09.2015 at the instance of respondent -
husband as the respondent driven out the petitioner - wife
from the matrimonial home. The petitioner is residing with
her parents.
5. It is also stated in the petition that the
respondent - husband is an advocate by profession and
also working as a lecturer in private law college in Belagavi
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
and that apart the respondent - husband is owning
immovable properties to an extent of 27 acres of land and
therefore the petitioner - wife has filed
Crl.Misc.No.343/2015 seeking maintenance from the
respondent - husband.
6. The respondent - husband entered appearance
and filed detailed statement of objection contending that
there was no marriage between the petitioner and himself.
It is the case of the respondent - husband that the
marriage is not consummated and the petitioner is not a
dutiful wife to the respondent - husband and fraud has
been committed by the petitioner - wife to contract the
marriage with the respondent - husband and as such
sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. It is also stated in the statement of objection
that the petitioner - wife has studied up to BA degree and
having computer knowledge and was working as data
entry operator at Hubballi Municipal Corporation prior to
12.04.2015 and accordingly the respondent - husband
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
submitted that as the petitioner - wife has left the
matrimonial home without cause and as such sought for
dismissal of the petition.
8. The Family Court based on the pleadings on
record, formulated points for consideration. In order to
establish their case, the petitioner - wife has examined
two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 40
documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.40. On
the other hand, respondent - husband has examined
himself as RW.1 and produced 12 documents and same
were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.12.
9. The Family Court after considering the material
on record, by its order dated 25.10.2023, allowed the
petition in part by directing the respondent - husband to
pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner
- wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent -
husband has preferred this petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
10. I have heard the petitioner in person and
Sri.U.G.Kattimani, learned counsel for the respondent.
11. The petitioner in person argued that, the
impugned order passed by the Family Court is illegal and
without any legal basis and accordingly sought for
interference of this Court. He further contended that the
respondent - husband never neglected the petitioner -
wife and the respondent herein left the matrimonial home
without any cause and accordingly sought for interference
of this Court. It is the specific contention of the petitioner
herein that the respondent herein and her parents have
manipulated the things to arrange the marriage of the
petitioner with respondent and further he argued that the
petitioner and the respondent were distant relatives. It is
also the submission made by the petitioner herein that,
the Family Court without considering the factual aspects
on record has passed the impugned order which requires
interference of this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
12. In order to buttress his argument, the petitioner
in person places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance
Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh and Others
reported in (2000) AIR (SC) 1165, in the case of
Khudiram Das vs. The State of West Bengal and
Others reported in (1975) AIR (SC) 550 and in the case
of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another reported in AIR 2021
SC 569 and argued that the impugned order passed by
the Family Court requires interference of this Court.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
herein sought to justify the impugned order passed by the
Family Court.
14. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing of the parties, I have carefully
perused the original records and examined the findings of
the Family Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
15. It is not in dispute that the marriage between
the petitioner - wife and respondent - husband was
solemnized on 12.04.2015 as per Exs.P.1 to P.3. Perusal
of the records would indicate that the respondent herein is
a widow and the petitioner herein is a divorcee. It is the
case of the petitioner - wife before the Family Court that
the respondent - husband has neglected and was not
taking care of the needs of the petitioner - wife and as
such she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home
on 24.09.2015 and settled at her parents house. It is the
allegation of petitioner - wife that the respondent -
husband is an advocate practicing for more than 15 years
and also a lecturer in a private law college. It is also stated
that the respondent - husband had immovable properties
to an extent of 27 acres at Achamatti village, Savadatti
Taluk, Belagavi district. It is the grievance of the
respondent - husband that petitioner - wife has left the
matrimonial home without cause and therefore not entitled
for maintenance.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
16. In the backdrop of these aspects, perusal of the
records would indicate that the parties are residing
separately and in that view of the matter the respondent
herein is entitled for maintenance from the petitioner
herein. The judgments referred to by the petitioner in
person are not applicable to the facts on record except the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajnesh supra, insofar as considering the
maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
17. On careful examination of the reasons assigned
by the Family Court, though the respondent herein is a
bachelor degree holder however, no acceptable document
has been produced by the petitioner herein to fortify that
the respondent herein is working at Municipal Corporation
at Hubballi and having independent income. In that view
of the matter taking into account the status of the parties,
the Family Court rightly passed the impugned order
directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent herein and in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh supra, the remedy
of maintenance is a measure of social justice to prevent
the wife and children from falling into destitution and
vagrancy, and applying the said principle to the case on
hand, there is no perversity in the impugned order passed
by the Family Court.
18. In view of the judgment of the Hon'be Supreme
Court in the case of Shailja and Another vs.
Khobbanna reported in AIR 2017 SC 1174, it is held
that merely because wife is capable of earning is not a
sufficient reason to interfere with the maintenance granted
by the Family Court. It is also to be noted that though the
petitioner/party in person made numerous allegation
against the respondent herein, however, the proceeding
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding to
grant relief to the neglected wife. It is also to be noted
that, in terms of the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633
Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another reported
in AIR 1999 SC 3348, proceedings under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. does not determine the rights of the parties and
therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision petition
and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
