[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Sheela vs Sri. M. N. Nandakumar on 13 March, 2026

                               -1-
                                         RPFC No.7 of 2024



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                           BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
             REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.7 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1.    SMT. SHEELA
      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
      W/O. M. V. NANDAKUMAR,

2.    SRI. AKSHAY
      AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
      S/O. M. V. NANDAKUMAR,

      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1776,
      E.W.S. YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
      BENGALURU-560 064.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJATH H.V.,ADVOCATE)

AND:
      SRI. M. N. NANDAKUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
      S/O. M.N. NAGAKUMARAIAH,
      R/AT PADMAVATHI NILAYA,
      4TH MAIN ROAD,
      VINAYAKA NAGAR,
      TUMAKURU-560 040.

      ALSO AT:
      M/S. SADGURU ENTERPRISES,
      SALT MERCHANTS MANDIPET,
      TUMKUR-560 040.
                                           ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.161/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU., DISPOSING OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125(3) OF CR.P.C., FOR RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE.

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

The present petition is filed by the petitioners under

Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being

aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in

Crl.Misc No.161 of 2022 by the I Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of

the respondent. Out of their wedlock, petitioner No.2-son

was born. Subsequently, disputes arose between the

petitioners and the respondent, and the petitioners filed a

petition seeking maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month for

the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month for the

second petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioners initiated

recovery proceedings by filing Crl. Misc. No.362/2015.

During the pendency of the said proceedings, the

respondent paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The recovery

petition came to be dismissed for default. Aggrieved by

the same, the respondent preferred RPFC No.195/2015

before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The said

petition was disposed of by order dated 18.09.2020,

confirming the order passed in Crl. Misc. No.712/2009. It

is further contended that the respondent is carrying on salt

shop business under the name M/s. Sadaguru Enterprises

at Mandipet, Tumakuru, and is earning sufficient income to

pay the maintenance amount. Hence, the petitioners have

prayed for issuance of a fine levy warrant against the

respondent for recovery of the maintenance amount due.

They have also filed a memo of calculation in support of

their claim.

3. The petitioners have filed the present petition

seeking recovery of maintenance amounting to

Rs.5,23,000/- for the period from 21.09.2009 to

21.02.2022. It is not in dispute that this court had earlier

passed an order in Crl.Misc. No.712/2009 granting

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- p.m., to the 1st petitioner and

Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner. It is also not in dispute

that the recovery proceedings initiated thereafter were

dismissed on 06.12.2018 for non taking of steps. It is not

in dispute that the respondent challenged the order passed

in Crl.Misc.No.712/2009 by filing RPFC No.195/2015

before this Court and by order dated 18.09.2020, said

RPFC was disposed of and confirmed the order passed in

favour of the petitioners in Crl.Misc. No.712/2009.

However, the petitioner No.1 has admitted in her memo of

calculation that during the pendency of the RPFC

proceedings and the present proceedings, the respondent

has paid a total sum of Rs.3,47,000/-. According to the

petitioners, balance amount of Rs.5,23,000/- has to be

paid by the respondent to the petitioners.

4. The Family Court has observed that the liability

of the respondent to pay maintenance is a continuing

obligation. However, it has further held that unless the

petitioners observing in the recovery proceedings, the

entire arrears cannot be claimed at once, and that only

arrears of maintenance for a period of twelve months are

recoverable.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the Family Court has erroneously held that under Section

125(3) of Cr.P.C., arrears of maintenance are recoverable

only for a period of twelve months.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent

had preferred an appeal against the order passed in Crl.

Misc. No.712/2009 before this Hon'ble Court in RPFC

No.195/2015 and had obtained an interim order staying

the operation of the said order. Subsequently, RPFC

No.195/2015 came to be dismissed on 18.09.2020,

confirming the order passed in Crl. Misc. No.712/2009.It is

further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a

petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking recovery of

maintenance in Crl. Misc. No.362/2015 before the Trial

Court, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. It

is further submitted that during the pendency of RPFC

No.195/2015 before this Court and in view of the dismissal

of Crl. Misc. No.362/2015, the Trial Court without properly

appreciating these material facts, has partly allowed the

petition filed in Crl. Misc. No.161/2022, directing recovery

of Rs.5,82,000/- towards arrears of maintenance for the

period from 21.09.2009 to 21.02.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon

Paragraph 7 of the Judgment in Poongodi and Another

vs. Thangavel reported in (2013) 10 SCC 618:

7. The ratio of the decisions in the aforesaid cases squarely applies to the present case. The application dated 5-2-2002 filed by the appellants under Section 125(3) was in continuation of the earlier applications and for subsequent periods of default on the part of the respondent. The first proviso to Section 125(3), therefore did not extinguish or limit the entitlement of the appellants to the maintenance granted by the learned trial court, as has been held by the High Court.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent that since respondent has already paid the

arrears for twelve months, namely, for the period

2021-2022 and the liability under Section 125(3) of

Cr.P.C. is limited to that extent, the present petition

seeking recovery of the remaining arrears of maintenance

does not survive for consideration. It is contended that

the remaining claim of arrears of maintenance cannot be

enforced in the present petition. It is further contended

that the petitioners had earlier filed a recovery petition,

which came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter,

petitioners sought recovery of the entire arrears of

maintenance awarded in the original proceedings by filing

the present petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

10. Petitioners have approached the I Addl. Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.161/2022

seeking arrears of maintenance of Rs.5,82,000/- for the

period 21.09.2009 to 21.02.2022 by way of fine levy

warrant Court. Learned Judge of the Family Court has

observed that as the arrears of maintenance of twelve

months has already been paid by the respondent to the

petitioners, the petitioners are not entitled for the

remaining arrears of maintenance and disposed off the

Crl.Misc.161/2022. However, liberty was given to the

petitioners to file recalling application to restore

Crl.Misc.No.362/2015 which was dismissed for default in

order to claim unpaid maintenance. The learned Judge of

the Family Court has rightly held that the petitioners are

entitled for twelve months maintenance only and they are

not entitled for remaining maintenance amount.