The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR R.P.F.C.NO.74 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI A.MANJUNATHA S/O.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.1198, 12TH CROSS GANAPATHIPURA, KONANAKUNTE KANAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 062 (BY SRI B.V.MOHAN ADEKAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: SMT.N.SOUBHAGYA @ SHIVAMMA W/O.A.MANJUNATHA D/O.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.18/1, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE NAGASHETTAHALLI SANJAYANAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 094 (BY SRI RAVI RAJ, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.560/2019 IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the husband, who was the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.560/2019 initiated by the wife seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. whereby the Family Court allowed the petition directing the petitioner-husband to deposit Rs.20,000/- per month and
Legal Reasoning
litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-husband contends that the order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set-aside on the ground that the petitioner-husband was placed ex parte and he had not contested the matter by producing any material, filing any objections, adducing any evidence and cross-examining PW.1. Hence, accepting the statement and evidence materials placed by the respondent-wife, the Family Court has passed the impugned order, which is one sided. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 2.1 It is further contended that the Family Court has not taken into consideration the educational qualification of the respondent-wife, whereby the respondent-wife is holding Bachelors Degree and she is gainfully employed and earning handsome salary. It is also contended by
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court at Rs.20,000/- is exorbitantly high and the petitioner-husband is not able to pay the said amount to the respondent. He contends that the impugned order be set-aside and the petitioner-husband be permitted to contest the matter before the Family Court by placing all such materials on record with regard to gainful employment and sufficient source of income of the respondent-wife and also his financial precarious condition due to his unemployment. On these grounds, he seeks to allow his petition and consequently, set aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Bengaluru and opportunity be granted to him to defend his case. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-wife contends that after initiation of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC., the petitioner-husband had appeared before the Family Court, but he has failed to file his statement of objections, cross-examine the witness and he has not entered the witness box to put-forth his case, thereby no fault can be found with the respondent-wife for the petitioner-husband having not participated in the proceedings. Therefore, learned counsel sustains the impugned order passed by the Family Court and consequently, seeks to dismiss this petition. 3.1 It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for respondent-wife that she has no source of income and she is unemployed. Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of the petitioner-husband to provide maintenance to the respondent-wife and hence, the Family Court is justified in passing the order granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner- husband and learned counsel for respondent-wife. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage and relationship between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife, so also, with regard to service of notice. The only contention of the petitioner-husband is that he was unable to participate in the proceedings, to file statement of objections and to produce relevant materials to controvert the material evidence placed by the respondent-wife before the Family Court, to defend his case effectively. It is only on the basis of the materials produced by the respondent-wife, the petition came to be allowed by the Family Court. 5. It is also seen that according to the petitioner- husband, the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant, which is without any proper evidentiary material with regard to income of the petitioner-husband. At the same time, the respondent-wife - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 has also not produced any documents to show her source of income and she has suppressed the same. 6. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the matter would have to be sent back by way of remand to the Family Court, Bengaluru to reconsider the matter afresh by providing opportunity to the petitioner-husband to defend his case by placing all materials to controvert the statement and evidence of the respondent-wife. At the same time, in view of the fact that the respondent-wife having succeeded in the petition before the Family Court and having not produced any other material before this Court to show her employment, it is the duty of the petitioner-husband to pay some amount as maintenance for daily sustenance of the respondent-wife, which shall be subject to modification if any, sought after deliberations in the matter.
Decision
7. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER i) This petition is allowed; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 ii) The order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.560/2019 by IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is hereby set- aside; iii) The matter is remitted back to IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for fresh adjudication of the matter; iv) The Family Court shall dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible; v) The Family Judge shall provide reasonable opportunity to both parties; vi) Both parties shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the case considering the fact that the criminal miscellaneous petition for maintenance is filed in the year 2019; vii) The petitioner-husband shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife till the petition is disposed off by the Family Court or any further orders passed on the application preferred by either of the parties - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 relying on the documents so produced including the assets and liabilities filed by them; viii) The petitioner-husband shall also pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month within a period of three months including the amount, which is already deposited before this Court or the Family Court by the petitioner- husband; ix) The petitioner-husband shall also pay the litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-wife as ordered by the Family Court; x) In view of the fact that both the petitioner and the respondent are present before this Court through their counsel, both parties are directed to appear before IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on 12.03.2025 without awaiting any further notice either from this Court or from the Family Court; xi) Ordered accordingly. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6667 RPFC No. 74 of 2024 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. It is open for both parties to file a fresh application for enhancement or reduction of the maintenance. The same shall be decided by the Family Court on the basis of materials placed by the parties independently. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16