Karnataka High Court
Smt Annapurana B W/O P Puneeth Kumar D/O ... vs Sri P Puneeth Kuar Aliyas Poral Puneeth ... on 14 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035
RPFC No. 100035 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100035 OF 2024 (-)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANNAPURANA B.,
W/O. P. PUNEETH KUMAR,
D/O B. ADIKESHUVULU,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. NO. 1282-1,
KONDAMMA STREET
NEAR REDDY STREET,
BALLARI - 583101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY AND SMT. Y. MALATHI REDDY,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI. P. PUNEETH KUAR
VN ALIYAS PORAL PUNEETH KUMAR,
BADIGER S/O. VENKATESHULU ALIYAS P. VENKATESHULU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O. BANK MANAGER,
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
MAHARASHTRA BANK,
Location: High
Court of
R/O. SRI. VITHAL APARTMENT,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO. 2680/F/1
Date: 2025.02.17
11:49:35 +0530 NEAR ARJUN THEATER,
MAHADEVA TEMPLE ROAD,
KARWAR - 581301.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVARJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2023
PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.30/2023 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRL.
JUDGE (FAMILY COURT), BALLARI BY GRANTING MAINTENANCE TO
PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035
RPFC No. 100035 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated
28.12.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.30/2023 on the file of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short, hereinafter
referred to as 'Family Court'), dismissing the petition.
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 that the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
26.08.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner lived in matrimonial
home for few months and was constrained to leave the
matrimonial home as the respondent and his family members
were ill-treating the petitioner, so also suspected the character
of the petitioner and used to check her mobile call logs secretly.
Hence, the petitioner left the matrimonial home. It is also
stated that, the petitioner has lodged complaint before the
Women Police Station for the offences punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035
Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
same is registered as Crime No.188/2022.
4. On service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and denied the allegations made in the claim
petition. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the
petitioner has left the matrimonial home without any cause and
the petitioner is graduate in Engineering and also working.
Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The Family Court after considering the material on
record dismissed the petition on the ground that, the petitioner
is a B.E. graduate and her father is head of Private Math.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented
this petition.
6. I have heard Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the reasons assigned by the Family Court is
without any basis as the petitioner is not working and residing
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035
along with her parents, were aged and therefore, sought for
interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent sought to justify the impugned order stating that
the petitioner is a B.E. graduate and gainfully employed and
therefore, sought to confirm the impugned order.
9. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 26.08.2021. On perusal of the impugned order
would indicate that, the petitioner herein has lodged criminal
case against the respondent and his family members in Crime
No.188/2022. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner
is not working and residing with her parents. The respondent
has not produced any documents to establish that the
petitioner is working and therefore, the Family Court has
committed an error and arrived at a conclusion that the
petitioner is a B.E. graduate and capable of earning. It is very
strange how the Family Court has concluded that, the father of
the petitioner is the head of Private Math and he is having
means to take care of his daughter.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035
10. Taking into account the declaration of law made by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
and Another1, it is held that remedy of maintenance is
measure of social justice as envisaged under the Constitution of
India to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution
and vagrancy. It is also to be noted that, merely because wife
is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reject the
application in the absence of acceptable evidence that the
petitioner/wife is working (see AIR 2017 SC 1174).
11. In that view of the matter, the petition requires to
be allowed and remitted the matter to the Family Court for
reconsideration in the light of the judgment of this Court as well
as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the right perspective.
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 28.12.2023 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.30/2023 on the file of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, is set
aside and mater is remitted to the Family
(2021) 2 SCC 324
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035
Court for fresh consideration in the light of
the observations made above.
(iii) Since, the parties are represented
through their learned counsel and in order to
avoid further delay in the matter, parties are
directed to appear before the Family Court
on 17.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m.
(iv) On their appearance it is open for the
parties to lead evidence if any, in the matter
and Family Court is directed to dispose the
same at the earliest.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM
CT:ANB
