Karnataka High Court
Smt. Katta Srilakshmi W/O Sri Katta ... vs Sri. Katta Ashwin Kumar S/O Katta ... on 9 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
RPFC No. 100116 of 2023
C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100116 OF 2023 (-)
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100013 OF 2023
IN RPFC NO.100116/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KATTA SRILAKSHMI
W/O. SRI. KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR
D/O. ANANTHAIAH SHETTY,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE/PVT JOB,
2. MASTER SUDHANWA
S/O. KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR,
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: MINOR,
SINCE THE PETITIONER NO 2 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT. KATTA SRILAKSHMI
W/O. SRI KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR
VN
D/O. ANANTHAIAH SHEETY,
BADIGER
BOTH ARE R/O PLOT NO. 6,
1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
Digitally S. N. PETH, BALLARI
signed by V
N BADIGER TQ: DIST: BALLARI.
Date:
2025.01.10
16:40:13 ...PETITIONERS
+0530
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE AND SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI. KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR
S/O. KATTA SRINIVAS,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HOUSE NO. 4-182
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
RPFC No. 100116 of 2023
C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023
RAGHAVENDRA COLON,
MAKTAL, MEHABOOB NAGAR DISTRICT,
TELANGANA STATE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE & SRI. ANNESAHEB SHALAGAR ADV'S)
-------
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND MODIFY
THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT- BALLARI IN CRIL. MISC. NO.131/2020 THEREBY
AWARDING MEAGER MAINTENANCE OF RS.5000/- TO PETITIONER
NO. 1 AND 10,000/- TO PETITIONER NO. 2 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED
BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN RPFC NO.100013/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. KATTA ASHWINI KUMAR
S/O. KATTA SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HOUSE NO. 4-182,
RAGHAVENDA COLONY,
MAKTAL MEHABOOB NAGAR,
DIST:TELANGAANA - 509208
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
RPFC No. 100116 of 2023
C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023
AND:
1. SMT. KATTA SRILAKSHMI
W/O. SRI KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC; HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: PLOT NO 6, 1ST MAIN,
6TH CROSS, S. N. PET,
BALLARI - 583101.
2. MINOR MASTER SUDHANWA
S/O. SRI. KATTA ASHWIN KUMAR,
AGE: 7 YEARS
OCC: NIL, R/O: PLOT NO. 6
1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
S. N. PET, BALLARI - 583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
-------
RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,
1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.11.2022, PASSED IN CRL.
MISC.NO.131/2020, BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
BALLARI, IN ALLOWING THE MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS HEREIN, IN PART DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO
PAY MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.15,000/- TO THE RESPONDENTS
(5,000/- TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 10,000/- RESPONDENT NO.2),
IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
RPFC No. 100116 of 2023
C/W RPFC No. 100013 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
These petitions are filed by the parties challenging the
order dated 23.11.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.131/2020 on the file of
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short "the Family
Court"), awarding maintenance of ₹5,000/- in favour of
petitioner No.1-wife and ₹10,000/- in favour of petitioner No.2-
child. RPFC No.100116/2023 is filed by the wife and child
against the respondent-husband and RPFC No.100013/2023 is
filed by the husband against the wife and child.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners before the Family
Court that the marriage between petitioner No.1 (wife) and the
respondent (husband) was solemnized on 09.03.2014 at
Matkal, Mehaboob Nagar District of Telangana State. It is
stated that the parents of the petitioner No.1 had given cash
and articles as dowry to the respondent-husband. It is also
stated that, in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born on
25.01.2015 and thereafter it is alleged by the petitioner No.1
that the respondent-husband and his parents were repeatedly
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
ill-treating the petitioners and also not providing basic
necessities as food and shelter to the petitioners and
accordingly, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and
were residing at the parents' house of petitioner No.1. In that
view of the matter, the petitioners have filed
Crl.Misc.No.131/2021 against the respondent-husband seeking
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.")
3.1. On service of notice, the respondent-husband
entered appearance and has filed detailed objection admitting
the relationship between the parties. It is the specific
contention of the respondent-husband that the entire marriage
expenses were borne by the family of the respondent-husband
and further, the attitude of petitioner No.1 was not good in the
matrimonial house and as such, she has left the matrimonial
home without any cause and accordingly, the respondent-
husband has sought for dismissal of the petition filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also stated in the objection that the
respondent-husband was working as a car driver at Raichur and
earning ₹8,000/- per month and as such, the respondent has
took up a contention that since the petitioner No.1 is working
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
as a lecturer in an educational institution and therefore, she is
not entitled for the maintenance from the respondent.
3.2. In order to establish their case, petitioner No.1-wife
was examined as PW1 and got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1
to Ex.P17. The respondent was examined as RW1 and got
marked 7 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. Further, two
documents as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were also marked by the Family
Court by concurrence. The Family Court, after consideration of
material on record, by its order dated 23.11.2022 allowed the
claim petition filed by the petitioners and as such directed the
respondent-husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/-
to petitioner No.1-wife and ₹10,000/- to petitioner No.2-child
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the husband has preferred
RPFC No.100013/2023 and the wife and child have filed RPFC
No.100116/2023.
4. I have heard Sri. Neelendra Gunde, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners/wife and child and Smt. Veena
Hegade, learned counsel appearing for respondent-husband.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.131/2020 that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
Family Court has committed an error in granting a meager
maintenance to the petitioners despite the fact the respondent
is owning a fertilizer shop and therefore, the petitioners are
entitled for enhancement of maintenance.
6. Per contra, Smt. Veena Hegade, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-husband submitted that the
respondent-husband has no objection insofar as maintenance
granted in favour of petitioner No.2 (child), however the
maintenance of ₹5,000/- awarded in favour petitioner
No.1(wife) is incorrect on the ground that the petitioner No.1
was working as lecturer in an educational institution. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
husband that both the petitioner No.1-wife and respondent-
husband are MCA graduates and therefore as petitioner No.1-
wife is also earning, and further as there is no acceptable
evidence to award maintenance to petitioner No.1. Accordingly,
she sought for dismissal of the impugned order passed by the
Family Court insofar as granting maintenance to petitioner
No.1.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. It is not in dispute that the marriage between
petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on
09.03.2014 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born on
25.01.2015. The perusal of the finding recorded by the Court
below would indicate that the relationship between the parties
was strained and the petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial home
and residing in the house of her parents along with petitioner
No.2-child. It is the case of the respondent-husband that the
petitioner No.1-was working as a lecturer in educational
institution and therefore, there is no need for awarding
maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife. In this regard, on careful
examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would
indicate that no documents have been produced by the
respondent-husband to substantiate as to the petitioner No.1 is
working in educational institution, so also earning a handful
salary.
8. On the other hand, perusal of the finding recorded
by the Family Court would indicate that the petitioner No.1 is
not working in M/s. Manavi Pattan Souhard Pattina Sahakari
Sangh Niyamith and therefore, I am of the view that the finding
NC: 2025:KHC-D:339
recorded by the Family Court is just and proper and the award
of maintenance by the Family Court to the petitioner No.1 is
just and proper and there is no perversity in the impugned
order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the impugned
judgment passed by the Family Court is hereby confirmed
taking into consideration the law declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and another v.
Khobbanna reported in AIR 2017 SC 1174 wherein it is held
that merely the wife is capable of earning does not sufficient
reason to reduce the maintenance granted to her by the Family
Court. In that view of the matter, as the petitioners have also
not made out a case of enhancement of maintenance and
taking into consideration the respondent-husband is working as
a driver at Hyderabad, I do not find any merit in both the
petitions. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
