Karnataka High Court
Shri Ramakrishna S/O Nagendrappa vs Smt Geethamma on 24 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
RPFC No. 100170 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100170 OF 2024 (-)
C/W
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100234 OF 2024
IN R.P.F.C. NO. 100170/2024 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. ROHITH S/O. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGE: 09 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP/BY HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E.
SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA,
BOTH ARE R/O. D.NO.127, W.NO.29,
GOUTHAM NAGAR, BELAGAL CROSS,
COWL BAZAAR, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA AND:
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High
Court of RAMAKRISHNA S/O. NAGENDRAPPA,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:
R/O. K. BELAGALLU VILLAGE,
TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583121.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED BY
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, IN CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS NO.73/2022 AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
RPFC No. 100170 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024
MAINTENANCE TO THE PRESENT CONCERN PETITIONER NO.1 IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN R.P.F.C. NO.100234/2024 (-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA S/O. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED 43 YEARS, OCC:
R/O. K. BELAGALLU VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583121.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF WARD NO.4,
BADIGERU PAMPI ONI,
K. BELAGALLU VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583121.
2. ROHIT SON OF RAMAKRISHNA
AGE: 09 YEARS, STUDENT,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT AT
BALLARI IN CRIL. MISC. NO.73/2022 TO THE EXTENT OF AWARDING
MAINTENANCE TO RESPONDENT NO. 2/ROHITH FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION AND TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
RPFC No. 100170 of 2024
C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
RPFC No.100170/2024 is filed by the petitioners in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.73/2022, challenging the order
dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ballari (for short hereinafter referred to as "the
Family Court"), seeking enhancement of maintenance.
2. RPFC No.100234/2024 is filed by the
respondent-husband in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.73/2022, challenging the order granting maintenance
to the petitioner No.2 therein.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that, the
marriage of petitioner No.1 with the respondent was
solemnized on 09.06.2006 and in their wedlock, petitioner
No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
the respondent was not taking care of the petitioners and
that the respondent-husband and his family members
were ill-treating the petitioner No.1-wife and therefore,
she left the matrimonial home and residing separately and
hence, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.73/2022 seeking
maintenance from the respondent-husband.
5. On service of notice, the respondent-husband
entered appearance and filed detailed statement of
objection denying the relationship with the petitioner No.1
that, she is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
6. The Family Court after considering the material
on record by its order dated 18.10.2023 dismissed the
petition insofar as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, and
granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the
petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
respondent - husband has filed RPFC No.100234/2024 and
petitioner No.1 has filed RPFC No.100170/2024.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
7. I have heard Sri. S. B. Naik, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100170/2024 and
Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in RPFC No.100234/2024.
8. Sri. S. B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that, though the respondent -
husband has stated that, the petitioner No.1 is not his wife
however, admits that the petitioner No.2 is his son, that
itself will makes it clear that, the petitioner No.1 is the
wife of the respondent and therefore, sought for
interference of this Court.
8.1. It is also contended by Sri. S. B. Naik, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that, grant of
maintenance to the respondent No.2 is meagre which
requires to be enhanced.
9. Per contra, Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - husband submitted that,
the petitioner No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
respondent-husband and further submitted that, the
respondent is working at Gram Panchayat of Belagavi
Village, Shirguppa Taluk on contract basis and therefore,
the award of maintenance granted by the Family Court is
on the higher side which requires interference by this
Court.
10. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully
examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. The
finding recorded by the Family Court would makes it clear
that, one Manjamma is the first wife of the respondent and
through her two children were born to the respondent. It
is also forthcoming from the evidence of RW1 who admits
that, the petitioner No.2 is his son. In that view of the
matter, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the
Family Court denying maintenance to the petitioner No.1
is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
Kushwaha1, where it is held that, the strict proof of
marriage is not condition precedent for awarding
maintenance. In that view of the matter, to that extent the
matter requires to be remanded to the Family Court for
fresh consideration.
11. Insofar as, award of maintenance of Rs.6,000/-
to the petitioner No.2 is just and proper by looking to the
finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph No.11 is
concerned and therefore, no interference is requires for
enhancement of maintenance insofar as, the petitioner
No.2 is concerned.
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) RPFC No.100170/2024 is allowed in
part and matter is remitted to the Family
Court to reconsider the case afresh to grant
maintenance to the petitioner No.1 is
concerned.
(2011) 1 SCC 141
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401
ii) Since, the parties are represented by
their learned counsel, parties are directed
to appear before the Family Court on
28.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m., without
waiting for further notice from the Family
Court.
iii) RPFC No.100234/2024 is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM
