- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200111 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. SHASHIKUMAR S/O SIDDAPPA KURALE, P.S.I. CIVIL MARKET POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.PRAKRITI BORALKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. POOJA G. W/O SHASHIKUMAR KURALE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BELAGAVI, NOW R/O: AT H.NO.L.265, NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MAHANTESH H.DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.156/2023 BY THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT RAICHUR AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. THIS RPFC, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court at Raichur, in Criminal Miscellaneous no.156/2023, this petition is filed. 2. Smt.Prakriti Boralkar, learned counsel submitted, marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized as per Hindu customs on 11.07.2019 at Nanadi village, Chikkodi. At time of marriage, amount of `25,00,000/- in cash, 11 tolas of gold and household articles worth `3,00,000/- were given. Thereafter, she went to matrimonial home and led marital life for about one month before they shifted to rented house at Belagavi. She noted that husband working as Police Sub- Inspector was addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling and womanizing and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty with demand for additional dowry. When she failed to comply with demands, she was subjected to harassment. It was alleged, she was subjected to physical torture by burning with cigarette lighter. Even allegation of practice of black magic was also made. Ultimately second week of October, 2022, she was driven out of house. Hence, she filed petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 3. It was submitted, husband working as Police Sub- Inspector at Market Police Station, Belagavi, drawing monthly salary of more than `60,000/-, holding 01 Acre irrigated land, three houses at Jodu-kurle village, Chikkodi and 03 industrial plots at Belagavi industrial area, from which he was earning more than `20,00,000/- per annum from said source. It was submitted, petitioner appeared and filed objections denying allegations, receipt of dowry and having income as alleged. It was stated, application was filed on imaginary basis and false allegations. 4. It was stated that soon after marriage, wife began disliking him and did not show interest in marriage. It was stated that he had taken loan and was required to make monthly payments to financial institutions. He also stated that wife was working, her mother was getting family pension and also rental income from three house totaling to `75,000/- per month. Therefore, she was not entitled for maintenance. 5. In support of contentions, wife examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. Husband examined - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 himself as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. Thereafter, Family Court framed following points for consideration : 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the monthly maintenance at the hands of respondents ? If so, what is the quantum ? 2. What order ? 6. By answering point no.1 partly affirmative, it allowed petition by answering point no.2, directing husband to pay monthly maintenance of `25,000/- to respondent-wife. Aggrieved, husband was in revision. 7. It was submitted, respondent had completed her Master of Technology graduation after completion of Bachelor of Engineering and was capable of earning. Beside same, it was submitted, her father was retired Government employee, who had died. Therefore, she was getting pension. It was further submitted, apart from pension, her father had three residential houses. From above she was getting total monthly income of more than `75,000/-. Therefore, she was not entitled for maintenance. Suppressing same, she has filed application for maintenance and despite objections by petitioner without - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 proper consideration, Family Court had passed impugned order and same call for interference. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is : “Whether impugned order directing petitioner- husband to pay monthly maintenance at rate of `25,000/- is contrary to record and calls for interference ?” 10. From above, relationship of husband and wife is not in dispute, even presently working as Police Sub-Inspector at Market Police Station, Belgavi is also not in dispute. Further, wife residing separately from petitioner is also not in dispute. Respondent-wife has filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which contemplates summary proceedings. Strict to rules of evidence would not apply. Though allegation of petitioner being addicted to bad vices subjecting wife to mentally and physical cruelty, harassment with demands for dowry are made and denied by petitioner, by referring to material on record, Family Court has held respondent-wife being entitled for monthly maintenance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 of `25,000/-. Since challenge by husband is only on quantum, findings of Family Court about petitioner being capable of earning, neglecting to maintain wife and her inability to maintain herself are not in dispute. 11. While determining quantum of maintenance, Family Court referred to Ex.P.3 – salary certificate along with Ex.R1 – Bank statement and Ex.R.2 – salary certificate of petitioner. Perusal of same would indicate that for month of March, 2023, net salary of petitioner was `69,314/-. Petition for maintenance is filed on 12.04.2023. Petitioner has not filed salary certificate for said period. There would be no impediment in presuming same to be his income even as on date of filing of petition. Though petitioner has claimed to be burdened with maintaining ailing parents and paying EMIs totaling to `15,000/-, apart from statutory payments, High Court of Allahabad in Veena Panda alias Seema Panda v. Devendra Kumar Panda, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine All 332 and High Court of Gujarat in Ashokkumar Kantilal Rathod v. Bhavnaben Ashokkumar Rathod reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Guj 342, have held normal rule for awarding maintenance in case - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 of wife would be 1/3rd of net income of husband as maintenance. Petitioner has alleged that she is working. But said allegation is not part of his pleadings. In any case, there is no evidence placed to said effect. It is also seen that petitioner has not filed affidavit of assets and liabilities while respondent has filed it denying employment and income as alleged by husband. Under such circumstances, finding of Family Court would appear justified. However while fixing quantum of monthly maintenance it has not assigned any specific reason for fixing `25,000/- as maintenance. In view of same, applying ratio laid down in decisions referred to above, i.e., 1/3rd of net salary would be around `23,000/-. After giving credit for maintenance of aged parents, it could be rounded off to `20,000/-. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following : ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order is modified. iii. Petitioner would be liable to pay monthly maintenance at rate of `20,000/- from date of petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3770 RPFC No. 200111 of 2024 iv. Arrears to be cleared within three months from today. Hence forth, maintenance to be paid to respondent on or before 10th of every month. v. In case, bank account particulars are provided, petitioner to transmit amount directly into such account of respondent. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55 Ct: Vk