- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769 WP No. 102898 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102898 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUMMET S/O. SIDDARMAYYA GANGDHARMATH AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BHMS DOCTOR. R/O: #460, PLOT NO. 12, LAST BUS STOP, VITTAL MARG, SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHIT L. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SEEMA W/O. SUMEET GANGADHARMATH, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. C/O. RUDRAYYA HANCHIN, #92, LAXMI GALLI, MASTAMARDI HUKKERI, BELAGAVI-591124. 2. KUMAR VIDWATH S/O. SUMEET GANGADHARMATH, AGE: 05 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. C/O. RUDRAYYA HAMCHIN, #92, LAXMI GALLI, MASTAMARDI, HUKKERI, BELAGAVI 591124. (SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL, PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI ON I.A.NO.II IN CRIMINAL.MISC NO.332/2024 AS DIRECTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY MONTHLY INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.4,000/- TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RS.3,000/- TO RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769 WP No. 102898 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 12/02/2025 passed by the 1st Additional, Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi on I.A.No.II in Criminal. Misc No.332/2024 as directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly interim maintenance of rs.4,000/- to respondent no.1 and rs.3,000/- to Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-D, in the interest of justice. B. Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent, the wife. The marriage between the two takes place on 21.11.2016 and a child is born from the wedlock. It transpires that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent- wife flounders. On floundering of the relationship, several proceedings are instituted against each other. One such proceeding is before the Family Court. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter before the Family Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769 WP No. 102898 of 2025 The wife files an application seeking interim maintenance. The concerned Court grants ₹4,000/- interim maintenance to the wife and ₹3,000/- to the child, in all ₹7,000/-. 3. The petitioner is before the Court on the score that he is not working and the wife is working. He is prepared to take care of the child and not the wife. The said submission is unacceptable. As the Interim maintenance that is granted is not that exorbitant for the petitioner to project that he is unemployed and he cannot take care of the wife. If indulgence is shown, it would run counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and Another Versus Deepak Kumar Garg1, wherein it is held as under: “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 Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769 WP No. 102898 of 2025 prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769 WP No. 102898 of 2025 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16769 WP No. 102898 of 2025 adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him.” 4. In the light of the issue standing completely answered, the petition does not merit any consideration. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18