- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200095 OF 2024 C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200069 OF 2024 IN R.P.F.C.NO.200095 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. NIKITA W/O AMANSING TAKUR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. KUMARI SANVI D/O AMANSING TAKUR AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR U/G OF HER NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO. 1 SMT NIKITA R/O: H. NO.9-263, SHAHABAZAR ROAD, NEAR PANCHAMUKI HANUMAN DEVASTAN KATAGARPURA, SHAHABAZAR KALABURAGI – 585 102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K.BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: AMANSING TAKUR S/O RAJKUMARSING, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 R/O: MADDURGA NIVAS, VAISHNAVI COLONY, GURUNANAK GATE, NEAR MILLENNIUM SCHOOL, BIDAR – 585 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER 15.04.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.84/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI AND ENHANCED THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FROM RS.13,000/- TO RS.40,000/- PER MONTH AND ALSO AWARD LITIGATION EXPENSES OF RS.50,000/- BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE SAID REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN R.P.F.C.NO.200069 OF 2024 BETWEEN: AMANSING TAKUR S/O RAJKUMARSING, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: MADURGA NIVAS, VAISHNAVI COLONY, GURUNANAK GATE, NEAR MILLENNIUM SCHOOL, BIDAR – 585 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NIKITA W/O AMANSING TAKUR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. KUMARI SANVI D/O AMANSING TAKUR AGE: 4 YEARS, U/G OF HER NATURAL MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1 SMT NIKITA W/O AMANSINGH BOTH ARE R/O: H. NO.9-263, SHAHABAZAR ROAD, NEAR PANCHAMUKI HANUMAN DEVASTAN KATAGARPURA, SHAHABAZAR KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAXMIKANTH HUGAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 15.04.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION THEREBY DISMISS THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 IN ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) RPFC No.200095/2024 is filed by wife and the daughter of respondent – Amansingh Takur. Wife is aged 27 and daughter is aged 6 years. Respondent – Amansingh is aged 31 years. 2. RPFC No.200069/2024 is filed by Amansingh Takur against his wife and daughter. 3. Both petitions are arising from the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.84/2021 on the file of Family Court, Kalaburagi. In terms of the said impugned order, the petition filed by the wife and the daughter invoking Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) is allowed in part. 4. Wife is held to be entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the petition and the daughter is held to be entitled to maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of petition, till the daughter gets the job or she get married, whichever is earlier. 5. In addition, husband – Amarsingh Takur is also directed to pay entire education expenses of his daughter till completion of her graduation. There is a direction to pay the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 maintenance amount to the petitioners on or before 10th of every month. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, husband has filed the petition, praying for dismissal of the petition. The wife and daughter have also filed the petition seeking enhancement of maintenance. 7. Wife and daughter are referred to as ‘petitioners’ and husband – Amansingh Takur referred to as ‘respondent’. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is inadequate, considering the income of the respondent and the expenditure of the petitioners. It is stated that respondent owned several shops which were gifted to the respondent from his maternal grandmother and same is now fraudulently transferred in the name of the grandmother after the dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondent. The respondent earned huge amount of income from the rent derived from the properties covered under the gift deed executed by the maternal grandmother and the family also owns agricultural lands measuring more than 40 acres in which the respondent is having share. It is also urged that, he has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 sufficient income and he has not disclosed his income. Thus, prays for an enhancement of monthly maintenance. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would contend that, at present, respondent does not hold any property. All the properties which the petitioners are pointing out, are the properties of the grandmother of the respondent and in the said property, respondent does not acquire any right by birth. It is also stated that the grandmother had executed a gift deed in favour of the respondent and same was subsequently cancelled in the month of March, 2020, before the petition seeking maintenance is filed. Thus, he would contend that the respondent has no income and order passed by the Family Court awarding Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter is unsustainable. 10. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has three sisters and one among them is mentally challenged, one is working and another one pursuing studies and respondent is taking care of his two sisters and grandmother is suffering from cancer and she is also under the care of respondent. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 11. By way of a reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the respondent filed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage making false allegation against the petitioner – wife and said petition is dismissed and appeal is pending consideration. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings, the Family Court has passed an order of interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month and same is paid by the respondent – husband except for previous two months maintenance, which according to the petitioners is in arrears. It is also stated that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.84/2021 is not yet paid by the respondent. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also does not dispute that fact that one of the sisters of the respondent is mentally challenged and another sister is pursuing studies and grandmother of the respondent suffering from cancer. However, he would submit that maternal grandfather is pensioner and grandmother’s needs are taken care of by the maternal grandfather. 13. This Court had directed the respondent to file an affidavit relating to the rental income received and the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 properties which were standing in his name under the Registered Gift Deed. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, today, the respondent has filed the affidavit stating that he used to receive Rs.2,350/- per month in the year 2020 towards rent for each shop and the properties comprised seven shops. 14. The respondent is present before this Court has not produced the rental agreement in respect of the shops. The law requires that rent agreement has to be in writing. Section 4 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, requires the rent agreement to be writing. 15. Since the respondent has not produced the rent agreement, this Court has to take adverse inference against the respondent. It is also noticed that the gift deed is said to have been cancelled unilaterally in the month of March 2020 and the gift deed was executed in favour of the respondent in the year 2013. 16. This Court has considered the contention raised at the bar and the said affidavit and perused the records. 17. The averments made in the petition filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage would inequitably - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 disclose that the relationship between the husband and wife was spoiled two months after the marriage which was shown as 28.01.2019. 18. On consideration of the averments made in the said petition, it is readily noticed that the respondent – husband executed the cancellation of the gift deed in favour of his grandmother in March 2020, which is almost one year after the dispute between the parties. Thus, it is apparent that the document is executed with an intention to provide the liability to pay maintenance. 19. It is also noticed that the respondent was owning seven shops constructed in a site measuring 90 feet x 98 ft. It is stated that the dimension of each shop is 9 feet x 12 feet. It is also forthcoming that the shops are located within the limits of Bidar city. As already noticed, the respondent – husband has not produced the lease agreements. The production of lease agreements could have disclose the actual rent received by the respondent. This Court has to held adverse inference taken against the respondent in not producing the rent agreements. It is also noticed that the respondent is able worried person. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 20. It is also an admitted fact tat the petition filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage is dismissed and appeal is pending consideration. The petitioners are willing to join the company of the respondent and respondent is not willing to stay with the petitioners. 21. This Court has taken into consideration the size of the shops and also its location in Bidar city, which is a District Headquarter. Also taking into consideration the respondent’s assertions that he was receiving Rs.2,320/- per month for per shop in 2020, which according to this Court is incorrect and undervaluation of rental income, this Court has to hold that respondent – husband must be deriving minimum Rs.6,000/- per month from each shop which comes to Rs.42,000/- rental income per month. 22. It is also stated by the petitioners that respondent is doing money lending business. Respondent states that he has completed II PU and had enrolled for B.Com course and did not complete the graduation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court would also hold that the respondent must be earning additional Rs.15,000/- per month from sources other than rental income. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2350 RPFC No. 200095 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 200069 of 2024 23. Taking into consideration of aforementioned factors, this Court is of the view that the petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.12,000/- per month and petitioner No.2 is entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month as monthly maintenance. The maintenance shall be paid by the respondent from the date of the petition. 24. The respondent shall credit the maintenance amount to the account of petitioner No.1 for herself and also as guardian of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 shall furnish the bank details to the respondent. 25. Accordingly, RPFC No.200095/2024 is allowed in part and RPFC No.200069/2024 is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21