- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100126 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SHRI RAMAKRISHNA SHINDE S/O SHASHIKANT SHINDE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC: SERVICE IN INDIAN ARMY R/AT HADALGA VILLAGE TALUK HUKKERI DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 591 309. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. AISHWARYA SHINDE W/O RAMAKRISHNA SHINDE AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/AT CHAVAT GALLI BENNALI VILLAGE DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SACHCHIDANAND S. P., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 IN CRL. MISC.NO.70/2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - husband is before this Court calling in question an order dated 17.10.2023, passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, in Crl. Misc. No. 70/2023, by which the court allows an application filed under Section 125 of CrPC directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- p.m. to the respondent - wife. 2. Heard Sri K.S. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sachchidanand S.P., learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the husband and the respondent, the wife. The two get married on 12.05.2019. It transpires that the relationship between the husband and the wife flounders and on floundering of such relationship, the husband was before the Family Court in M.C. 380 of 2021 seeking a divorce. The issue - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 in the lis does not concern the proceedings before the concerned Court. The wife files an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking interim maintenance at the hands of the husband and also files her affidavit of assets and liabilities, as is required in law. The concerned Court in terms of order impugned, after verification and consideration of the statement of assets and liabilities so filed, grants interim maintenance of Rs.9,000/- p.m. to the wife. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner - husband is serving in the Indian Army and earns Rs. 55,150/- per month. After all deductions, the petitioner only receives a salary of Rs. 38,537/-, out of which Rs. 27,752/- is required to be paid to service a loan and there is requirement of Rs. 4,000/- per month for medical and other expenses of his mother and as such without considering the financial obligations of the husband, the family court has fixed Rs. 9,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance to be paid to the wife. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 5. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent – wife is uneducated and unemployed, without any source of income and is entirely dependant on her husband for maintaining herself. The petitioner - husband apart from his salary also earns income from his ancestral lands and owns two vehicles. He is leading a comfortable life and the petitioners reasons for refusing to provide interim maintenance to his wife should not be accepted. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. It is a matter of record that the parties to the lis were before the concerned Court in M.C.No.145/2022. The respondent - wife files an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking interim maintenance and also files her affidavit of assets and liabilities, which shows that the respondent - wife is uneducated, unemployed and totally dependent on her husband. The concerned Court after considering the assets and liabilities of both the parties, by its order, grants interim - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- p.m. to be paid by the husband to the wife. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the family court has granted the interim maintenance without considering the financial obligations of the husband is unacceptable. The husband being an able bodied man is expected to work and take care of the wife. The purport of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1. The Apex Court has held as follows: “10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 no. 2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant wife. 12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order. 13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son. 14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him.” (Emphasis supplied) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:665 WP No. 100126 of 2024 In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Court granting the sum of Rs. 9,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance to the wife at the hands of the husband. 9. The writ petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. Interim order granted earlier, if any, stands dissolved. _______SD/-__________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:SS