Jagadeesh vs Smt Shobha
2026 Latest Caselaw 2756 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Jagadeesh vs Smt Shobha on 27 March, 2026

                            -1-
                                     RPFC No. 324 of 2025



  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. 324 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESH
S/O LATE KENCHAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O HARALLI KATTE VILLAGE
BHARMASAGAR HOBLI
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT- 577 001.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.K. SRIHARSHA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SHOBHA
W/O JAGADEESHA
D/O B.K. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O BELAVANURU VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TQ - DIST-577 002.
                                         ...RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.167/2022 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 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

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband being

aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the

Family Court, Davangere in Crl.Misc.No.167/2022 filed

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

whereby the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay

monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the

respondent/wife.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The marriage between the petitioner/husband and

the respondent/wife was solemnized on 15.05.1995 in

accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. No children

were born out of the said wedlock. The respondent filed

Crl.Misc.No.167/22, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before

the Family Court, Davangere, seeking maintenance. It is

alleged that at the time of marriage her parents had given

a sum of Rs.60,000/- in cash towards marriage expenses

and about 120 grams of gold to the petitioner. The

respondent further alleged that after about 23 years of

marriage, disputes arose between the parties. According

to wife, as no children were born out of the wedlock, the

petitioner started harassing her both physically and

mentally. It is further alleged that though she had

undergone medical treatment, no positive results were

achieved and thereafter the petitioner sent her back to her

parental house. During the year 2018, when the

respondent was residing at her parental house, the

petitioner contracted second marriage with one Sushma,

who is stated to be the daughter of his younger sister. The

respondent further alleged that panchayaths were

convened between the families, during which the

petitioner and his family members abused her and

attempted to assault her and her brothers. In spite of the

advice of the panchayathdars, the petitioner refused to

take back respondent/wife to the matrimonial home.

Therefore, wife filed a petition before the Family Court,

Davanagere in Crl.Misc.No.167/2022 for grant of

maintenance.

3. Upon service of notice, the petitioner appeared

before the Family Court through his counsel and filed his

statement of objections. It is allged that the wife had filed

similar petition before JMFC 2nd Court, Chitradurga and she

got dismissed the same. In order to prove her case, the

respondent/wife examined herself as PW-1 and got

marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the other hand,

the petitioner/husband examined himself as RW-1 and got

marked documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the Family Court, Davangere has failed to

properly appreciate the material available on record and

without proper application of mind has awarded

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent

from the date of the petition. Further, it is submitted that

the landed properties are not standing in the name of the

petitioner and he has aged mother to maintain who is

suffering from various diseases. Further, it is alleged that

petitioner has never neglected to maintain the

respondent/wife, but she herself refused to join the

petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended

that the petitioner is an agriculturist owning agricultural

lands and properties at his native place and that he is

earning about Rs.15,00,000/- per annum from agriculture

and about Rs.20,00,000/- per annum from other sources.

It is alleged that with a malafide intention to deprive her

of any share in the property, the petitioner intentionally

drove her out of the matrimonial home.

6. The respondent further contended that due to the

continuous physical and mental harassment caused by the

petitioner, she suffered paralysis on 19.11.2021 and took

treatment at SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere from

19.11.2021 to 23.11.2021. According to the respondent,

despite being informed about her medical condition, the

petitioner and his family members did not show any

concern or provide any assistance. On these grounds, the

respondent contended that the petitioner has failed and

neglected to maintain her and has not made any

arrangements for her maintenance, thereby failing to

discharge his duty as a husband.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent and perused the material available on record.

8. The petitioner had produced the certified copy of

the Agreement of Sale marked as Ex.R1, wherein the

petitioner and his mother had agreed to sell 04 acres 34

guntas of land in R.S.No.11/2 of Haralakatte Village,

Bharamasagara Hobli in favour of the respondent.

However, under the said agreement, possession of the

property was not delivered to the respondent and the

reason for execution of the said agreement was not

properly explained by the petitioner. It is further

submitted that the Family Court also observed that the

respondent had issued a legal notice as per Ex.R2 to the

petitioner and his mother calling upon them to execute the

sale deed in terms of the Agreement of Sale at Ex.R1. The

documents further disclose that the respondent has filed

O.S.No.78/2020 against the petitioner and his mother

seeking execution of the sale deed pursuant to the said

agreement.

9. It is further observed that RW-1 admitted in his

cross-examination that he and his mother own about 8

acres of land excluding the land already sold. He further

admitted that he earns about Rs.10,00,000/- per annum

from the arecanut garden and about Rs.4,00,000/- per

annum from maize cultivation. From the documents at

Ex.R1 and Ex.R4, it is evident that a civil suit is pending

between the parties in respect of the land which is alleged

to have been agreed to be sold by the petitioner and his

mother in favour of the respondent.

10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record, this Court is of considered

opinion that a sum of Rs.6,000/- awarded towards

monthly maintenance to wife is just and reasonable.

There are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by

the Family Court.

Accordingly the RPFC is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

bnv