- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 52 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. K. ANILKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O MR. K. SUBRAMANYAM RAJU, RESIDING AT 4-25 OF K.R. KOTTAL VILLAGE, S.V. PURAM, VADAMALA PETA, MANDALAM CHITOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 551. REP BY ITS ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. SUNIL KUMAR KONDURU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O MR K SUBRAMANYAM RAJU, RESIDING AT 4-25 OF K R KOTTAL VILLAGE, S.V. PURAM, VADAMALA PETA, MANDALAM, CHITOOR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 551. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. FEROZE NIZAM A., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. K. NAYANA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O K. ANILKUMAR, RESIDING AT NO. 514, 10TH MAIN, BHCS LAYOUT, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 UTTARAHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 061. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDHAKARA K G., ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.539/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the husband who was the respondent in the proceedings initiated by the wife in Crl.Misc.No.539/2021 before the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru. The respondent-wife initiated a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner-husband seeking maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month and to return her - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 gold ornaments and also the marriage expenses along with litigation expenses. 2. The petitioner was placed ex-parte before the Family Court and on the basis of materials placed by the respondent-wife the Family Court allowed the petition and passed an order granting maintenance to the extent of Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of petition till she becomes disentitled to receive the said amount. The Family Court has also awarded litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the ex-parte order passed against the petitioner is before this Court seeking to set aside the same, on the ground that, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and exorbitant. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, no notice to the petitioner was served in the proceedings before the Family Court. The notice was claimed to have taken out by way of e-mail, but the said e-mail stated by the respondent before the Family Court is not that of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 petitioner as he had moved from the TCS India company to TCS in Mexico. Therefore, he has not received any mail with regard to the proceedings in the Family Court. Apparently, it is also contended by learned counsel that there is absolutely no defense by the petitioner, the Family Court has passed one sided order, on the basis of the materials placed by the respondent and has passed award of maintenance granting Rs.50,000/- per month, which is exorbitantly high. Therefore, he contends that, he may be provided an opportunity to contest the matter before the Family Court place the assets and liabilities before the Court with regard to himself and so also the respondent be directed to place all materials to show her inability to work and source of income and thereafter, decide the matter in accordance with law by providing an opportunity to the petitioner. 4. This Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner passed an order reducing the maintenance to Rs.25,000/- per month as interim maintenance, which the petitioner has paid - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 substantial amount and remaining balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance amount as ordered by this Court at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, it is seen that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the Court for disposal of the matter and so also he has paid the amount as ordered by this Court. Under these circumstances, he seeks to allow this petition. 6. Per contra learned counsel representing the respondent/wife contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Family Court as notice was duly served on the mail address of the petitioner, so also alternative notice was taken out to the address of the petitioner at Andhra Pradesh, which was also received. Therefore, the Court on the basis of materials and on the evidence adduced by the respondent passed the order which does not call for interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the impugned order and the submissions of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 learned counsel, apparently to seen there is no dispute with regard to marriage but the question remains as to what is the maintenance that requires to be awarded in favour of the wife the fact also remains that the petitioner- husband has not participated in the proceedings before the Family Court as he remained ex-parte. He requires to be given an opportunity to defend his case, places all materials in his possession and so also apparently it is seen that both the parties have not filed their assets and liabilities as per the law laid down on by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh V/s Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 disposed of on 04.11.2020. Under the circumstances, impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the Family Court for adjudication afresh by providing an opportunity to both parties to place materials before the Family Court. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 ORDER i. This petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated at 12.09.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.539/21 passed by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court at VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru to decide the matter afresh by providing reasonable opportunity to both parties. iv. The petitioner/husband shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month till further orders are passed either on the interim application or on the main petition by the learned Family Court Judge. v. The petitioner shall also pay the balance maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.25,000/- as ordered by this Court on 08.01.2025. However, this order would be subject to further - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7738 RPFC No. 52 of 2024 orders that would be passed by the Family Court either by reducing or increasing the maintenance on the basis of materials placed by the both the parties before the Family Court. vi. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, all contentions of the parties are kept open. Since, both the learned counsel are present before the Court representing each of the parties. They are directed to appear before the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru on 20.03.2025 without awaiting any further notice either from this Court or the Family Court. vii. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT:SNN