Mr. Divakara .N vs Mrs. Shubha Gayathri
2026 Latest Caselaw 2753 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Divakara .N vs Mrs. Shubha Gayathri on 27 March, 2026

                            -1-
                                     RPFC No. 169 of 2023



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                           BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
           REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 169 OF 2023
BETWEEN:

MR. DIVAKARA .N
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O.LATE NARASIMHA BHANDARY
R/O THALAMAKKI
KUDREGUNDI POST
KOPPA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 126.
                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B.TUMBAGI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.    MRS. SHUBHA GAYATHRI
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
      W/O. DIVAKARA N
      D/O. LATE DEVAPPA BHANDARY
      R/O. PRASHANTH NILAYA
      BONATHILA, VAMANJOOR
      MANGALURU - 575 029.

2.    MASTER SADWIN
      AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
      S/O DIVAKARA N,

      SINCE MINOR, REP. BY
      MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
      SHUBHA GAYATHRI
      R/O PRASHANTH NILAYA
      BONANTHILA,
      VAMANJOOR,
      MANGALURU - 575 029.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(R1 & R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, R1-MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R2)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.7/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K. MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125(1)(a)(b) OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.03.2026 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 petitioner-husband

seeking to set aside the order dated 01.06.2023 passed in

Cr.Mis.No.7/2021, produced at Annexure-A, and to dismiss the

maintenance petition filed on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru (for short, 'the Family Court').

2. The petitioner herein is the husband, respondent

before the Family Court and the respondents herein are wife

and minor child, petitioners before the Family Court.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are

referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioners instituted a petition under Section

125(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for

short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- each from

the respondent. It was contended that petitioner No.1-wife

married the respondent-husband on 12.11.2017 at Samaja

Mandira, Moodabidri, and out of the said wedlock, a male child,

namely, petitioner No.2-Master Sadwin, was born on

11.03.2019. Petitioner No.1 asserted that she had completed

M.Sc. in Chemistry and was working as a lecturer at Mangala

Para Medical College, Mangaluru. According to her, after the

marriage, she left the said employment on the assurance that

she would be provided employment at Koppa and thereafter

joined the matrimonial home.

5. Petitioner No.1 further alleged that after the

marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment by the respondent

and his mother and was not provided proper care during her

illness and pregnancy. It was also alleged that the respondent

suspected her character and installed a CCTV camera inside the

room. Due to the negligent and torturous conduct of the

respondent, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial

home in June 2020. She further contended that the respondent

neglected and refused to maintain her and the minor child and

that she is presently residing in her mother's house and is

dependent upon her mother for sustenance, having no

independent income.

6. Petitioner No.1 also alleged that the respondent is

running a garage at Koppa and is earning about Rs.1,00,000/-

per month, and on that basis sought maintenance of

Rs.15,000/- each for herself and the minor child.

7. Upon service of summons, the respondent appeared

and admitted the marriage and the birth of petitioner No.2.

However, he denied the other allegations and contended that

petitioner No.1, from the beginning of the marriage, behaved

rudely and had informed him that she was not interested in

marrying him as she was allegedly having an affair with one

Srinivasa Boruthu of Mangaluru, and that she married him only

due to family pressure.

8. The respondent further contended that petitioner

No.1 treated him and his ailing and bedridden mother with

disrespect and expressed dissatisfaction about residing in a

village. Despite attempts by both families to resolve the

disputes, the same did not yield results. According to him,

petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial home with the intention of

ending the relationship. He asserted that he is working in

another person's garage, has no permanent income, holds a

BPL card, and has to maintain himself and his bedridden

mother. He also contended that petitioner No.1, being well

qualified and previously employed, suppressed material facts

and filed a false dowry harassment case at the instance of her

family members.

9. In order to substantiate her case, petitioner No.1

examined herself as PW-1 and her brother as PW-2 and

produced documents at Exs.P1 to P7. The respondent examined

himself as RW-1 and his brother as RW-2 and produced

documents at Exs.R1 to R8.

10. Based on the pleadings and evidence, the Family

Court framed points for consideration and partly allowed the

petition by order dated 01.06.2023 directing payment of

maintenance, which is under challenge in the present petition.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that neither the pleadings nor the evidence establish the

alleged ill-treatment. The Family Court, merely on the basis of

registration of a criminal case, which has not been tested in

trial, erroneously concluded that the petitioner subjected

respondent No.1 to cruelty.

12. It is further contended that respondent No.1 is

admittedly an M.Sc. graduate and had been working as a

lecturer. Despite such qualification, she voluntarily left the

matrimonial home and claimed maintenance. It is urged that

the Family Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application

seeking production of her bank statements and assets and

liabilities affidavit, which would have aided proper adjudication.

13. It is also contended that the petitioner earns only

Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month as a gas welder and has to

maintain his bedridden mother. The allegation that he earns

Rs.1,00,000/- per month is unsubstantiated. Even the

suggestion of Rs.35,000/- per month was not supported by

evidence. Despite this, the Family Court awarded Rs.7,500/-

each, which is beyond his capacity.

14. The petitioner further contends that respondent

No.1 had no inclination to lead matrimonial life in a village and

insisted on sending his mother to an old age home. Allegations

regarding her prior relationship and conduct are also reiterated.

It is contended that the Family Court failed to consider

recorded conversations and other material evidence.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

16. Having considered the contentions advanced and

after perusal of the materials placed on record, it is not in

dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized

on 12.11.2017 and that a male child was born on 11.03.2019.

The relationship and paternity being admitted, the

requirements under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stand satisfied. The

only question is with regard to the correctness of the quantum

of maintenance.

17. On re-appreciation of the material, this Court finds

that the Family Court was justified in holding that respondent

No.1 had sufficient cause to live separately. The evidence of

PW-1, corroborated by PW-2, discloses ill-treatment and

neglect. Complaints dated 17.09.2020 and 08.11.2020 have

resulted in registration of a criminal case in Cr.No.67/2020 for

offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 201 read with Section

34 of IPC. Exs.P3 and P4 constitute prima facie material. The

petitioner herein/husband has not discredited the same.

18. The plea of desertion by respondent No.1 herein/wife

is not substantiated. No steps such as issuance of notice or

filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights were taken

by the petitioner herein. Allegations regarding her conduct

remain unproved and were rightly discarded.

19. Insofar as the financial capacity of respondent No.1

is concerned, the Family Court has rightly held that mere

educational qualification or past employment cannot be a

ground to deny maintenance in the absence of proof of present

income. Though it is admitted that respondent No.1 is the

M.Sc. graduate and was earlier working as a lecturer, no

evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to establish that

she is presently employed or earning. The burden in this regard

was on the petitioner, which he has failed to discharge. Hence,

the finding that respondent No.1 is unable to maintain herself

and the minor child calls for no interference.

20. With regard to the income of the petitioner, the

Family Court has assigned cogent reasons for disbelieving his

plea of earning only Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. The

admission that he has been running a garage at Koppa for

more than 10 years, coupled with the photograph of his

residential house marked at Ex.P7, justifies the inference that

he has a stable and sufficient source of income. In the absence

of documentary proof from the petitioner regarding his exact

income, the Family Court was justified in assessing his monthly

income notionally at Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- based on

probabilities and the material on record.

21. In that view of the matter, the award of

maintenance of Rs.7,500/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2,

totaling Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of petition, is

neither excessive nor arbitrary. The Family Court has balanced

the needs of the wife and minor child with the earning capacity

and obligations of the petitioner, including maintenance of his

aged mother.

22. The findings of the Family Court are based on

evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality

warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.

23. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The order

dated 01.06.2023 passed in Cr.Mis.No.7/2021 on the file of the

Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, is hereby

confirmed.

SD/-

(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

BNV