Karnataka High Court
Pratibha And Anr vs Ajay on 17 September, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
RPFC No. 200007 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200007 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. PRATIBHA
W/O AJAY KAMBLE,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: H.H.WORK,
R/O: BABALESHWAR,
TALUKA: BABALESHWAR,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. SANVI
D/O AJAY KAMBLE,
AGE: 09 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
(MINOR REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1)
by SHIVALEELA ...PETITIONERS
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
AJAY
S/O SHIVAGOND KAMBLE,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: CASHIER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, JAMKHANDI,
TALUKA: JAMKHANDI,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
RPFC No. 200007 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION
PETITION AND AWARD MAINTENANCE OF RS.25,000/- PER
MONTH FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAPUR IN CRL.MISC. NO.488/2019 DATED
13.10.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS RPFC, 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 by petitioners -wife and
daughter of the respondent challenging non award of
maintenance to petitioner No.1 and award of lower
maintenance to petitioner No.2 by the I Additional Judge,
Family Court, Vijayapura in Crl.Misc.No.488/2019 dated
13.10.2023.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondent.
3. Petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is
daughter of the respondent. Petitioners have file petition under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C before family Court seeking maintenance
of Rs.15,000/- for petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- for
petitioner No.2. It is the case of petitioners that the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
HC-KAR
respondent at instigation of his family members started to
torture her and forcing her to bring dowry of Rs.7 lakhs from
her parents. When petitioner No.1 expresses her inability to
meet out his demand, he started torturing her mentally and
physically and deserted her and her daughter during the month
of March-2019. They contended that the respondent is working
as Cashier in State Bank of India and he getting the salary of
Rs.50,000/- per month.
4. The respondent in his statement of objections has
denied all allegations made against him. The respondent has
admitted relationship. He contended that after the birth of
petitioner No.2, petitioner No.1 at instigation of her brothers
started to quarrel with him and his family members for silly
reasons. The respondent contended that he is having mother
aged about 100 years and he has to take care of her. He
contended that after the death of his father, he got job at State
Bank of India on compassionate ground. He contended that
petitioner No.1 is doing tailoring work and also having
computer knowledge and getting income of Rs.8,000/- to
Rs.10,000/- per month. He contended that he has filed petition
under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against petitioner. The
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
HC-KAR
family Court recorded evidence of petitioners and respondent
and thereafter, passed the impugned order of maintenance to
petitioner No.2 in sum of Rs.7,000/- and rejecting claim of
petitioner No.1 for maintenance.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Family Court,
petitioners are before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that
petitioner No.1 is left her matrimonial house due to harassment
by the respondent. She is not having any income. Family Court
has erred in rejecting the claim of maintenance of petitioner
No.1 only on the ground that she insisted the respondent to
make separate house to reside separately from his mother and
she has left matrimonial house voluntarily without any reason.
He contended that the respondent is getting salary of
Rs.67,000/- as per his pay slip -Ex.P3. Considering the same,
maintenance in sum of Rs.7,000/- per month is on lower side.
With these, he prayed to modifying the order passed by the
Family Court by awarding maintenance to petitioner No.1 and
award maintenance higher than awarded by family Court to
petitioner No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend
that evidence of P.W.1 indicate that she is insisting the
respondent to make separate house to reside separately from
his mother with petitioners and she has left matrimonial house
voluntarily without any reason. He submits that considering
the said aspect, the family Court has rightly rejected the claim
of petitioner No.1. He further submits that considering the age
of petitioner No.2 and salary of respondent No.2, the family
Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to
petitioner No.2. With these, he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused impugned order and trial Court records.
9. Relationship between parties is not in dispute.
Petitioner No. 1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is daughter of the
respondent. It is also not in dispute that respondent is working
as cashier in State Bank of India.
10. On reading chief examination of P.W.1 and entire
cross examination, it is clear that petitioner No.1 has left her
matrimonial house as she was harassed by her mother in law
and demanding cash and gold ornaments and also she has
been harassed by the respondent at the instigation of his family
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
HC-KAR
members. The Family Court considering some portion of cross
examination of P.W.1 has erred in holding that petitioner No.1
voluntarily left matrimonial house without any reason.
Considering entire evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that P.W.1 has
left her matrimonial house due to harassment made by the
respondent. Therefore, petitioner No.1 is entitled for award of
maintenance.
11. Ex.P3 is salary slip of respondent No.2 for the
month of January 2020 and his gross salary is Rs.50,040/- and
his net salary is Rs.27,099/- after compulsory deductions i.e.,
PF and also loan installments and LIC premiums. Compulsory
deductions, PF and professional tax comes to Rs.6,600/-.
Considering the said fact, the respondent is getting net salary
of Rs.43,400/-.
12. Petitioner No.2 was aged 04 years as on the date of
petition. Considering the said fact, award of maintenance in
sum of Rs.7,000/- to petitioner No.2 is just and proper. So far
petitioner No.1 is concerned as she is wife of cashier of State
Bank of India and to lead life as such she is entitle to
maintenance in sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5522
HC-KAR
13. In view of the above, the following
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned order passed by the Family Court rejecting
the claim of petitioner No.1 awarding of maintenance is
set aside.
iii) Petitioner No.1 is entitled maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per
month from the date of petition.
iv) The award of maintenance in respect of petitioner No.2 in
sum of Rs.7,000/- is remained unaltered.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
