Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.C.Shivamurthy vs Smt.B.V.Savithramma on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
MFA No. 4864 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4864 OF 2018 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.C.SHIVAMURTHY
S/O KABBUR CHANNABASAPPA
AGED 63 YEARS
DODDALAGHATTA, SIRIGERE
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577141
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJA K G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B.V.SAVITHRAMMA
W/O K C SHIVAMURTHY
Digitally AGED 52 YEARS
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA 2. MISS. K S RASHMI
Location: D/O K C SHIVAMURTHY
HIGH COURT AGED 25 YEARS
OF
KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/O H BASAVAPURA
HUCHCHAVVANAHALLI POST,
MAYAKONDA HOBLI,
DAVANGERE TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 036
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
MFA No. 4864 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2018 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.126/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE
ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed seeking the following
relief.
"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may
be pleased to set aside the order dated 14.02.2018 in
Crl.Misc.No.126/2016 on the file of the Judge, Family
Court, at Davanagere, petition filed by the respondents
u/s 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act be
rejected and this appeal be allowed with costs
throughout."
3. The impugned order passed by the Judge, Family
Court, Davanagere on 14.02.2018 has been passed on an
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
application moved under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 19561 by the petitioners - respondents. The
aforesaid petition under Section 18 of the Act was partly
allowed with cost of ₹1,000/- directing that the petitioners -
respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance of ₹1,500/-
each per month from the date of the petition.
Petitioner - Respondent No. 1 is the wife and the petitioner -
respondent No.2 is the daughter of the appellant. The case of
the petitioners - respondents in their petition under Section 18
of the Act was that the petitioner No.1 came to know that the
appellant had secretly entered into a marriage with another
lady during the continuance of their marriage. The petitioners
were forced to stay separately and had approached the Family
Court, Davanagere and filed a petition under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.144/2004. The
petition was contested and came to be allowed on 29.10.2004
granting maintenance to the petitioners - respondents at the
rate of ₹700/- to petitioner No.1 and ₹500/- to petitioner No.2.
Since the order was not complied with, a petition was filed
seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance from the appellant
Act
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
in Crl.Misc. No.136/2005 in the Family Court, Davanagere. The
respondent appeared before the Court, but being unable to pay
the arrears of maintenance to the petitioners - respondents
agreed to execute a release deed in favour of the petitioners in
respect of land bearing Sy.No.13/1A of Chikkalaghatta Village,
Hireguntanur Hobli, Chitradurga District and accordingly, the
appellant executed the release deed in favour of petitioner No.1
on 22.10.2005. In view of the aforesaid, a compromise was
entered into between the parties and as such, on 25.10.2005,
the case was closed.
4. It was further stated that petitioner No.2 completed
her post graduation in Agricultural Economics. Petitioner No.1
availed loans from relatives and friends in order to pay the fees
and hostel accommodation of petitioner No.2. The appellant
being the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of
petitioner No.2 failed to discharge his legitimate duties and to
take care of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It was further stated that
the land in respect of which a release deed was executed by
the appellant having an area of 1 acre 35 guntas is barren land
and not irrigated but dependent on monsoons and crops such
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
as ragi and maize grown on the said lands. It was stated that
the yields are not so much, so as to maintain the petitioners'
daily needs and expenses and more particularly for pursuing
the higher education of petitioner No.2. It was alleged that the
respondent has agricultural lands and sufficient means and
earning more than ₹30,000/- per month. Therefore,
maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month in favour of petitioner
No.1 and ₹20,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No.2 was
claimed.
5. Objections were filed by the appellant stating that a
compromise petition was filed in Crl.Misc.No.136/2005 and the
petitioners are enjoying the property as their own property and
the appellant has no right and title on that property. The
petitioners have got changed the khata of the property in their
own names and improved the land and cultivating jowar on the
said land. It was stated that the property is now valued in
excess of ₹50,00,000/-. It was stated that as the property was
given to the petitioners for their life maintenance, the appellant
had no obligation or liability to take care of the petitioners. It
was stated that the respondent is an agriculturist and having
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.57/P of Oddarasiddanahalli,
Chitradurga Taluk. His income being more than ₹30,000/- per
month was denied. In the conciliation proceedings, the
petitioners were not present, but the respondent - appellant
was present and hence the conciliation was not held. In support
of the case, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got
marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and closed the side.
The respondent himself was examined as RW.1 and got marked
the documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed the side. The
Court recorded the points that arose for its consideration.
"1) Whether the petitioners prove that the respondent
has willfully refused and neglected to maintain them
in spite of having sufficient means and income?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance
amount? If so, what is quantum of maintenance?
3) What order?"
6. The finding on the above points, were as follows:
"Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: Partly in the affirmative and petitioners are
entitled for maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each
per month from the respondent from the
date of petition.
Point No.3: As per the final order, for the following:"
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
7. For consideration, point Nos.1 and 2 were taken up
together. The Court noted that the petitioners had produced
the copies of the order sheet, petition and compromise memo
in Crl.Misc.No.136/2005 at Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and the respondent
has also produced the certified copies of the order, petition,
order sheet, compromise memo in Crl.Misc.No.136/2005 at
Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and Ex.R5. The Family Court relied upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagendrappa
Natikar v. Neelamma2, wherein the Court had observed that
inspite of the compromise reached between the parties under
Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which is accepted by the Court, a suit
under Section 18 of the Act is maintainable. The Supreme
Court held that the order made under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is
tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a
Civil Court. The Supreme Court further referred to the
provisions of Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any
agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable
in a Court of Law and such an agreement is void, since the
object is unlawful. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., being summary in
(2014) 14 SCC 452 : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11800/2013
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
nature and any order passed there under by compromise or
otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under
Section 18(2) of the Act. While considering the aforesaid
judgment in the light of the facts of the case, the Family Court
observed that though the petitioners made submissions
regarding income and earning of the respondent, but did not
produce any satisfactory documentary evidence in support of
the said contentions. However, the respondent in his
objections stated that he is an agriculturist and having 1 acre
30 guntas of land. It was also noted that petitioner No.2 had
completed her M.Sc in Agricultural Economics that she is
unmarried and has no job. Accordingly, the Court was of the
opinion that the petitioners were entitled to maintenance of
₹1,500/- each per month from the appellant from the date of
the petition. Holding that the petitioners had proved that the
respondent has willfully refused and neglected to maintain
them inspite of having sufficient means and that they are
entitled for maintenance at the above rate.
8. We have perused the record. Ex.R6 is a deed of
release of the aforementioned land having an area of
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
1 acre 35 guntas in favour of petitioner No.1. It is a duly
stamped and a registered document. It is the case of the
appellant that the appellant has given up all rights to the said
land post the compromise and he has no claims there to.
Further, the said land is the absolute property of the
respondents. The compromise memo is Ex.R5 and it reads as
follows:
"COMPROMISE MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES
As per the advise of well wishers and relatives of
both the parties they entered into compromise and
settled the matter.
The respondent agreed to give the schedule land
to the petitioners towards their full and final
maintenance of their life. The respondent has executed
maintenance / release deed in favour of the petitioners
before the Sub-Registrar Office, Chitradurga, dated
22.10.2005. The petitioners are entitled to enjoy the
suit schedule property. In future the petitioners have no
right to claim maintenance from the respondent in any
court.
Further the respondent has handed over the
possession of the suit schedule property to the
petitioners on 22.10.2005 along with the standing Ragi
and Hurali Crop, which is costs about Rs.12,000/- also
the respondent paid Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner on
24.10.2005, in Court.
Thus the petitioners have satisfied with the above
settlement towards the maintenance of life and agreed
to not to claim any sort of maintenance from the
respondent in future.
Under the circumstances it is prayed that the
petitioners have no right to claim maintenance in future
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
in respect of the orders passed in Crl.Misc.144/2003. In
view of this the present petition may be dismissed as
fully satisfied."
9. Thus, the aforesaid compromise memo records
that the possession of the property has been handed over to
the petitioners by means of the maintenance/release dated
22.10.2005 and an amount of ₹5,000/- has been paid to the
petitioner on 24.10.2005 in Court. It is stated that the
petitioners are satisfied with the above settlement towards the
maintenance of life and agreed not to claim any sort of
maintenance from the respondent in future.
10. On the basis of the compromise, a memo dated
24.10.2005 was filed on behalf of the petitioners. This memo
also records that in the aforesaid maintenance / release deed,
the petitioners have given up all rights to any other property
that falls to the share of the appellant.
11. On 25.10.2025, the order sheet of the Family Court
reflects that both parties had filed the compromise memo and
admitted the contents. The case was closed in view of the
compromise memo.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant is a poor agriculturist having only an area of
1 acre 30 guntas to sustain himself. That land also is rainfed
and crops that are similar to the crops being grown on the plot
of the respondent are being grown by the petitioners. A
completely false statement was made before the Family Court
that the appellant has an income of Rs.30,000/- per month.
Without noticing that the land itself is worth more than
Rs.50,00,000/- and that regular income is being derived by the
respondent from the said land, the Family Court has directed
payment of Rs.1,500/- each to the wife and to the daughter.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners - respondents
on the other hand has opposed the petition and has stated that
as reflected from the judgment of the Supreme Court, the
settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., is not conclusive and a civil right can be enforced by
the wife in future also, should the circumstances so merit. It is
further stated that the land would not fetch the value as is
being suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
no material has been placed to demonstrate the value of that
property.
14. It is not the case of the petitioners - respondents
that the appellant has property other than 1 acre 30 guntas
which she is cultivating and that land which is more than the
area of the land available with the appellant was given to the
petitioners - respondents by means of the aforesaid
maintenance / release deed. It is also not disputed that both
the land of the petitioners - respondents and the appellant are
similarly situated and rainfed. Respondent No.2 is no longer a
minor but has attained the age of 25 years. She has obtained
post graduation degree in Agricultural Economics and there was
no material on record to demonstrate that whether respondent
No.2 had any earning.
15. Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 reads as follows:
"18. Maintenance of wife.―(1)Subject to the
provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married
before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be
entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life
time.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live
separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim
to maintenance,―
(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of
abandoning her without reasonable cause
and without her consent or against her wish,
or of wilfully neglecting her;
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to
cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind
that it will be harmful or injurious to live with
her husband;
(c) [* * *]
(d) if he has any other wife living;
(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in
which his wife is living or habitually resides
with a concubine elsewhere;
(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion
to another religion;
(g) if there is any other cause justifying her living
separately.
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate
residence and maintenance from her husband if she is
unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to
another religion."
16. There is no provision under Section 18 of the Act to
provide for maintenance of the daughter. It only provides for
maintenance of the wife. For the maintenance and care of the
petitioners, it would be unfair to put the appellant to a state of
distress by taxing him in excess of what was actually conveyed
in terms of the release deed. It is pertinent to mention here
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
that the release deed was executed by the appellant to take
care of the petitioners - respondents for their life time since it
was over half of the property what came to the share of the
appellant. It is common knowledge that the value of land
appreciates over a period of time. As development takes place,
the value of the land goes on increasing. Under the facts and
circumstance, it cannot be said that the aforesaid compromise
entered into between the parties would have a life span.
17. Of course, there may be circumstances in particular
cases that land may not have that yield or that value in view of
the locational and other issues that may exist or crop-up.
However, here is not that case.
18. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, in
our humble opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court relied
upon by the Family Court, may not strictly apply to the present
case.
19. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The order of the Family Court impugned dated
14.02.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.126/2016 on the file of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46312-DB
HC-KAR
Judge, Family Court, Davanagere, is hereby set aside. No
order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KG
