Karnataka High Court
Keerthi And Anr vs Omkar on 10 September, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5289
RPFC No. 200018 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REV.PET. FAMILY COURT NO.200018 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. KEERTHI W/O OMKAR PUJARI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. PRITHWIRAJ S/O OMKAR PUJARI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BOTH ARE R/O: PLOT NO.52/81/3,
NEW JEWARAGI ROAD,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
KARUNESHWAR NAGAR,
BRUNDAVAN LAYOUT,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
(BY SRI MALIK PASHA MAUZAN, ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
OMKAR S/O HANMANTHAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: TAHASILDAR, SHAHAPUR,
R/O: NOW TMC YADGIR,
DIST: YADGIR - 585 201.
...RESPONDENT
(VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5289
RPFC No. 200018 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 15.11.2023, PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI IN CRL.MISC.NO.07/2022 AND
ISSUE ANY OTHER DIRECTION IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE CASE AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT, COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed seeking enhancement of
maintenance as awarded vide order dated 15.11.2023,
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7/2022, by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5289
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In
spite of service of notice, the respondent remained absent.
3. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is
the son of the respondent. The petitioners had filed the
petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance as
awarded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.100/2019. In
Criminal Miscellaneous No.100/2019, the maintenance has
been enhanced from Rs.3,500/- per month to Rs.5,000/-
per month in respect of petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per
month to Rs.2,500/- per month in respect of petitioner
No.2. Thereafter, the petition in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.7/2022 came to be filed seeking enhancement of
maintenance. The respondent did not appear and contest
the petition even after service of notice and remained ex
parte. Petitioner No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and
got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The Family Court enhanced
the maintenance from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.6,000/-
per month in respect of petitioner No.1 and from
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5289
HC-KAR
Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month in respect
of petitioner No.2. Being not satisfied with the
enhancement of maintenance, the petitioners are before
this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that Ex.P.6, the salary certificate of the
respondent has not been considered by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court even has not considered the school fee of
petitioner No.2 and his medical expenses. With this, he
prays for enhancement of maintenance as awarded by the
Trial Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, this Court perused the impugned order and
the Trial Court records.
6. Ex.P.6 is the salary certificate of the respondent
for the month of August, 2022 and as per the said salary
certificate, his gross salary is Rs.61,268/- and after
deduction of Rs.210/, his net salary is Rs.61,058/-. On
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5289
HC-KAR
perusal of the impugned order, the Trial Court has not
considered said salary certificate at Ex.P.6. The Trial Court
has only observed that in the year 2018, the respondent
was getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and salary
might have been increased by now. Considering the same,
it appears that the Trial Court has not taken into
consideration Ex.P.6, salary certificate of the respondent.
Ex.P.3 is the receipt for having paid school fee of
petitioner No.2 in a sum of Rs.32,000/-, which is the
annual fee of petitioner No.2. Ex.P.4 contained several
medical prescriptions and receipts of treatment of
petitioner No.2. Ex.P.7 is the medial record file of
petitioner No.2 with regard to his treatment in Dr. P.G.
Shah hospital. Considering those documents, even
petitioner No.2 requires money for his medical treatment.
Considering the gross salary of the respondent in a sum of
Rs.61,058/- as per Ex.P.6, salary certificate, the school fee
and medical expenses of petitioner No.2, the maintenance
enhanced by the Trial Court is not proper and correct.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5289
HC-KAR
Considering the said net salary of the respondent and
school fees, medical expenses and maintenance of
petitioner No.1 to the standard of that of the respondent,
who is the Tahsildar presently working as Commissioner,
City Municipality, Yadgir, maintenance needs to be
enhanced from Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per
month to petitioner No.1 and from Rs.4,000/- per month
to Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. Therefore,
the Trial Court has committed an error in that regard.
7. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The maintenance enhanced by the Trial Court is
modified as under:
(a) The maintenance awarded to
petitioner No.1 is enhanced from
Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5289
HC-KAR
per month and Rs.4,000/- per month
to Rs.10,000/- to petitioner No.2.
(b) The respondent shall pay the said
enhanced maintenance from the date
of petition of the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:VK
