Smt. Pavitra W/O Prasad Bailwad vs Shri. Prasad S/O Mahantesh Bailwad on 19 February, 2026

                                                  -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB
                                                      MFA No. 100015 of 2025
                                             C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

                     HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                         PRESENT
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
                                            AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100015 OF 2025 (FC)
                                         C/W
                         MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100063 OF 2025 (FC)

                    IN MFA NO.100015 OF 2025:
                    BETWEEN:

                    SHRI PRASAD
                    S/O. MAHANTESH BAILWAD,
                    AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                    R/O. #7, PLOT NO.9+10/1,
                    VAISHWANI COLONY,
                    NEAR SIDDESHWAR MATH,
                    GOPPANKOPPA,
                    HUBBALLI - 580 023.
                                                                      ... APPELLANT
                    (BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR
                        SRI SANTOSHKUMAR M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                    AND:
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
                    SMT. PAVITRA W/O. PRASAD BAILWAD,
                    BFORE MARRIAGE PAVITRA
                    D/O. GURURAJ NEELAKANTHANAVAR,
                    AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                    R/O. #C-54/867, TIMMASAGAR ONI,
                    HUBBALLI-580 023.
                                                                    ... RESPONDENT
                    (BY SRI S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)

                         THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS
                    ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN M.C.
                    NO.186/2024 DATED 30/11/2024 AND DECREE DATED 09/12/2024,
                    BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB
                                  MFA No. 100015 of 2025
                         C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR



HUBBALLI, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER SECTION 9
OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

IN MFA CROB NO.100063 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:

SMT. PAVITRA W/O. PRASAD BAILWAD,
BFORE MARRIAGE PAVITRA
D/O. GURURAJ NEELAKANTHANAVAR,
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: C/O. #C-54/867, TIMMASAGAR ONI,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 028.
                                              ... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI PRASAD S/O. MAHANTESH BAILWAD,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. #7, PLOT NO.9+10/1,
VAISHWANI COLONY, NEAR SIDDESHWAR MATH,
GOPPANKOPPA, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580 023.
                                                  ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)


      THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.100015/2025 IS FILED UNDER 41
RULE 22 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CROSS APPELLANT TO
FILED THIS CROSS APPEAL; MODIFY THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
1ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI IN M.C.
NO.186/2024 DATED 30.11.2024 INSOFAR FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.3
AND ALSO ON RETURN OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS OF THE
CROSS APPELLANTS AS PER PARA NO.3 OF THE M.C. PETITION IN
M.C. NO.186/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.

     THIS MFA AND MFA CROB ARE COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT
AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 03.02.2026, THIS DAY, B.MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -3-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB
                                     MFA No. 100015 of 2025
                            C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR



CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
            AND
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                          CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

1. The Respondent in M.C. No.186/2024 on the file of

learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi

(hereinafter referred to as 'family court') is the Appellant in MFA

No.100015/2025. He has maintained this appeal praying to set

aside judgment and decree dated 30.11.2024 passed therein.

2. The Petitioner in M.C. No.186/2024 has preferred

MFA Crob. No.100063/2025 praying to enhance the permanent

alimony awarded by the family court apart from directing the

Respondent to return the gold and silver ornaments of her, by

modifying the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2024.

3. The parties to these proceedings are referred herein

with their original ranking before the family court.

4. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:

4.1 The Petitioner namely Smt. Pavitra maintained a

petition in M.C. No.186/2024 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

with the Respondent, which had taken place on 10.02.2023 and

for permanent alimony of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4.2 Similarly, the Respondent maintained a petition in

M.C. No.352/2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for

the relief of restitution of conjugal rights against the Petitioner.

4.3 Both these petitions were pending before the family

court and they were tried together. In these proceedings, the

Petitioner adduced her evidence as PW-1 and got marked

documents at Ex.P1 to P14. The Respondent adduced his

evidence as RW-1, examined one more witness and got marked

documents at Ex.R1 and R2.

4.4 Thereafter, the family court heard the submissions of

both sides, considered the materials placed on record and

disposed of these petitions on merits of the case vide judgment

and decree dated 30.11.2024. The family court partly allowed

the petition in M.C. No.186/2024 and granted the decree of

divorce as prayed in the petition and directed the Respondent to

pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Petitioner by way of

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

permanent alimony. The said court dismissed the petition

maintained by the Respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed

in M.C. No.186/2024, the Respondent has maintained MFA

No.100015/2025 praying to set aside impugned judgment and

decree and consequently to allow his petition under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act. However, during the course of argument

Sri R.H.Angadi, learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that

the Respondent restricts his challenge to the impugned judgment

and decree to extent of seeking reduction in quantum of

permanent alimony ordered in the case.

6. Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that the

Respondent is running a small business in stationary items and

he is hardly getting monthly income of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.

He further submitted that the Respondent has the responsibility

of maintaining his aged parents, who are depending upon him.

Thus, he contended that the Respondent is a poor man and he

does not own any property. In the above circumstances, he

submitted that the family court has erred in directing the

Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- by way of permanent

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

alimony to the Petitioner, without taking into consideration his

financial capacity and standard of living.

7. Per contra, Sri S.S. Niranjan learned Counsel for

Petitioner vehemently submitted that while answering Point No.3

the family court has concluded that the Respondent has got

sufficient income but failed to award just and reasonable amount

for the maintenance of the Petitioner by way of permanent

alimony. As such, he sought this Court to allow the cross

objection and enhance permanent alimony apart from directing

the Respondent to return the gold and silver ornaments received

by him at the time of the marriage.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the

grounds urged and arguments canvassed by both sides before

this Court. Thereby, the following points would arise for our

consideration:

a) Whether the permanent alimony amount awarded by the family court to the Petitioner is just and reasonable?

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

b) Whether the Petitioner has made out valid ground to seek for enhancement of permanent alimony? If so, what amount?

Point Nos. (a) and (b):

9. Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads

as under:

"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.--(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent."

10. In Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain [2024 INSC

961], Hon'ble Apex Court of India, while reiterating the factors

that needs to be considered in order to arrive at a just, fair and

reasonable amount of permanent alimony, held that -

"31. There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula for fixing the amount of permanent maintenance. The quantum of maintenance is subjective to each case and is dependent on various

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

circumstances and factors. The Court needs to look into factors such as income of both the parties; conduct during the subsistence of marriage; their individual social and financial status; personal expenses of each of the parties; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage; and such other similar factors. This position was laid down by this Court in Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal.

32. This Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), provided a comprehensive criterion and a list of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent alimony. This judgment lays down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary for deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, with specific emphasis on permanent alimony. The same has been reiterated by this Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (Supra). The primary objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not left without any support and means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting the interests of the dependent spouse and does not provide for penalizing the other spouse in the process. The Court in these two judgments laid down the following factors to be looked into:

i. Status of the parties, social and financial.

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.

iii. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses.

iv. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.

vi. Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities.

vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.

viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric. These among such other similar factors become relevant.

33. This Court in Kiran Jyot Maini (Supra), while discussing the husband's obligation to maintain the wife and the importance of his financial capacity in deciding the quantum, observed that:

"26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court must consider the husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs.

Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort post separation."

11. In Rajnesh Vs Neha and another, reported in

MANU/SC/0833/2020, Hon'ble Apex Court while restating the

criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, has held that -

"... A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors.

The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. ..."

12. While the determination of maintenance or

permanent alimony lies within judicial discretion, it must be

exercised judiciously, guided by principles of equity and fairness.

Courts should consider factors such as the parties' social status,

standard of living, income and assets of spouses, their liabilities

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

and dependents, and the parties' overall conduct, to arrive at a

just, fair, and reasonable amount.

13. In the case on hand, Para 55 to Para 61 of the

impugned judgment contains the discussion and reasons

assigned by the family court, for arriving at quantum of

permanent alimony at Rs.7,00,000/-. On appreciating the

materials available on record, the family court, at Para 57 of the

judgment recorded its finding as follows:

"... In the light of the above said admission given by the R.W.1 coupled with the said photo copy of the property which is produced under Ex.P13, the respondent is having lakhs together income per month out of all the business. In other words, he is having sufficient property as well as business to generate sufficient income to maintain the petitioner. ...".

However, at the end, in Para 61 of the judgment the family court

proceeded to hold that

"... In the case on hand, looking to the income of the respondent and considering the age of the petitioner who now lost her marital life due to alleged act of the respondent and considering the social status of the respective parties and coupled with the huge income of the respondent, it is just and necessary to grant permanent alimony of Rs.7,00,000/- which would reach both the ends of justice...."

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

Thereby, it is evident that the family court has not determined

the quantum of permanent alimony in the case, having regarding

relevant factors for consideration.

14. Undisputedly, the marriage of the Petitioner and the

Respondent was solemnized on 10.02.2023 as per the custom

prevailing in their community. Thereafter, within a short period

both of them maintained the petitions in M.C. Nos.186/2024 and

352/2024, i.e, on 19.04.2024 and 31.07.2024 respectively. As

on the date of these petitions, they were aged about 32 years

and 39 years respectively. Thus, the materials on record indicate

that they had lived together hardly for about five months after

the marriage. They have no children born in wedlock.

15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is

unemployed, lacks any independent income, and currently

resides with her parents. She further contended that the

respondent earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month from his business,

along with rental income from a prime commercial complex in

Ramdurg and additional properties, including a house and

adjacent shops in Hubballi. In the said circumstances, she sought

for a direction requiring the respondent to pay her permanent

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

alimony of Rs.20,00,000/-. Whereas, the Respondent contended

that he is doing a small stationary delivery work and earning

Rs.2000/- - Rs.3000/- p.m. and he has to maintain his aged

parents. He claimed that he has no other source of income.

Further, he did not whisper anything about the education,

employment, earning capacity, income of the Petitioner or the

property owned by her.

16. In her evidence, the petitioner reiterated the

averments in the petition regarding the financial conditions of

both herself and the respondent. However, during her cross-

examination, the respondent made no effort to deny or dispute

such statements made by the petitioner on oath. On the

contrary, during his cross examination the Respondent has given

certain unambiguous admissions, which go to root of his defense,

as under:

"...£Á£ÀÄ ¢éÃwAiÀÄ ¦AiÀÄÄ¹ ªÀgÉUÉ N¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £Á£ÀÄ ¹Ã¸ï, ¥É¤ì¯ï ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ ¸ÉÖÃ±À£Àj ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É...

2. ...£À£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£É EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖwÛzÉÝÃªÉ, ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄÄVzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÛÃªÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä »jAiÀÄjUÉ ºÉÃ½zÀÝ¼ÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£É UÉÆÃ¥À£ÀPÉÆ¥Àà UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÁV E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ºÁUÀÆ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀÅl¥ÁvÀUÉ vÁVPÉÆAqÀÄ 3

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

CAUÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj CAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ vÁVPÉÆAqÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj... zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ ºÉÆ¸ÀAiÀÄ¯Áè¥ÀÇgÀzÀ°è MAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊ®ªÁqÀ JAlgÀ¥ÉÊæ¸À¸À EzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ mÉÆÃPÀ ªÁå¥ÁgÀzÀ CAUÀr DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è »jAiÀÄjUÉ ºÉÃ½zÀÝ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, ¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ D jÃw ºÉÃ½®è JAzÀÄ...

3. ...£À£Àß vÀAzÉ wÃjºÉÆÃzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è CªÀjUÉ ¨sÁUÀ §A¢zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀðzÀ°è MAzÀÄ PÀªÀÄð²AiÀÄ¯ï PÁA¥ÉèPÀì PÀnÖzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj PÁA¥ÉèPÀì 2 CAvÀÛ¹Ü¤AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÁA¥ÉèPÀì ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ vÁVPÉÆAqÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ ªÀÄºÁgÁtÂ ¨ÉÃPÀj ©°ØAUÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÉÃPÀjAiÀÄ ¥ÉÇÃmÉÆÃ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë M¦àzÀ PÁgÀt ¤¦-13 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ...

4. ...¸ÀzÀj PÁA¥ÉèPÀìUÉ £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ EgÀÄªÀ GvÁgÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj...

14. ...UÉÆÃ¥À£ÀPÉÆ¥Àà ºÀÄ§â½îAiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ £ÀªÀÄUÉ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¨ÉqÀgÀÆ«Ä£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ »AzÀÄUÀqÉUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ CAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ CAUÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAUÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÖ®Ä ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 60 ®PÀë RZÁðVzÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ DzÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ PÀlÄÖvÉÛÃ£É. ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è. ¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ®è JAzÀÄ..."

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

17. The respondent's clear, unequivocal, and

unconditional admissions fundamentally undermine the core of

his defence, rendering his position untenable without further

evidence. These admissions establish that the respondent and

his family own two houses and three shops in Gopankoppa

Village, one shop in Hosayellapur (Dharwad), and a two-floor

commercial complex in Ramdurg. Although the respondent

claimed his mother and younger brother also hold rights in these

properties, he did not deny his right therein. The materials on

record indicate substantial rental income from these properties

for the respondent and his family. Moreover, during cross-

examination, he explicitly admitted being an income tax

assessee, who regularly pays taxes. Despite these disclosures,

he failed to produce any documents evidencing his actual

income. This deliberate withholding of material evidence

amounts to suppression of relevant facts from the court's

consideration. Consequently, an adverse inference has to be

drawn against the respondent under Section 114(g) of the Indian

Evidence Act.

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

18. In the light of above narrated factual aspects of the

case and particularly the status of the respondent, his financial

condition including the assets owned by him as well as the lack

any independent income to the Petitioner and her present

dependency on her parents, we are of the considered view that

the quantum of permanent alimony needs to be enhanced to

Rs.15,00,000/- in place of Rs.7,00,000/- awarded by the family

court.

19. Ex.P14 is a yadi (list) detailing items agreed to be

given by the bride's family to the bridegroom at the time of

marriage. This document records an undertaking to provide

Rs.60,000 in cash and 40 grams of gold to the respondent. The

petitioner formally marked this document by confronting the

respondent during evidence, who did not deny its correctness or

authenticity. Despite this unchallenged evidence establishing the

respondent's obligation, the family court failed to direct its return

while granting other reliefs. Hence, an appropriate direction

needs to be issued requiring the respondent to return the

specified cash equivalent and gold to the petitioner, in addition

to permanent alimony.

- 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

20. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal in MFA No. 100015/2025 is

dismissed.

(ii) The cross appeal in MFA CROB. No.100063/2025

is partly allowed.

(iii) The judgment and decree dated 30.11.2024

passed in M.C. No.186/2024 by learned I Addl.

Prl. Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, is modified.

(iv) The respondent is directed to pay a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner by way of

permanent alimony in place of Rs.7,00,000/- as

ordered by the Family Court, within a period of

sixty days from the date of this judgment.

(v) The respondent is further directed to return

Rs.60,000/- and 40 grams of gold to the

Petitioner, which was received from her family

under Ex.P14.

- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2600-DB

C/W MFA.CROB No. 100063 of 2025

HC-KAR

(vi) Draw a decree accordingly.

(vii) The amount in deposit, if any, along with the

Trial Court records shall be transmitted to the

concerned Family Court forthwith.

Sd/-

(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

VB, BVV CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4