- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100228 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. ASWINI @ K. VARSHA, W/O. K.RAGHUVEER, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. RASHI D/O. K.RAGHUVEER AGE. 4 YEARS, 3. SAKSHI D/O. K.RAGUVEER, 1 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1 ALL ARE R/O. YERRANGALI VILLAGE, KURUGODU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.P.VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR P1 (P2 AND P3 MINORS)) AND: K.GAGHUVEER @ K.RAGHUVEER S/O. K. RAVEENDRA AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/O. C/O. K.A. ANNAPURNA, W/O. K.ANJINEYA, WARD NO.30, HOSAPETE ROAD, NEAR MAHADEVA TATA MAT, VINAYAK NAGAR CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.26 14:38:14 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BALLARI IN CRL.MISC.NO. 290/2022 IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE PETITION AS AGAINST PETITIONER NO. 1 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO GRANT MAINTENANCE AS CLAIMED IN THE PETITION AND TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED SO FAR AS AGAINST PETITIONER NO. 2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED BY GRANTING THE MAINTENANCE AS CLAIMED IN THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.290/2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision petition are that petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 20.4.2018 as per the Hindu Customs at Mahadeva Tata Mutt, Ballari and at the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner no.1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 gave sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry besides gold ornaments weighing 15 tolas and another sum of Rs.30,000/- for purchasing of marriage clothes to the respondent/husband. In the wedlock petitioners no.2 and 3 are born. The difference supervened between the parties when respondent started to demand extra dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- to enable him to secure Government job, the said demand was declined by petitioner no.1/wife. It is further stated that respondent and his family members started traumatizing and thrashing her mercilessly for her failure to bring the said amount. The efforts of parents of petitioner no.1 to resolve the dispute between the parties went in vain. Hence petitioner no.1 was compelled by the respondent and his family members to go out of the matrimonial home. Petitioners no.2 and 3 are daughters. On 27.02.2022, petitioners had gone to matrimonial home at Yerrengalli village, the respondent and his parents refused to take back them and made them to stay outside throughout the night, hence in view of said cruel disposition of the respondent/husband, the petitioners were left with no option but to quit the matrimonial home. The petitioner no.1 has lodged complaint against the respondent/wife with the Women Police Station, Ballari on 26.08.2021 and 28.02.2022. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 The petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and hence filed petition before the trial Court directing respondent/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to petitioner no.1 and Rs.15,000/- each to petitioners no.2 and 3 respectively. It is contended that the respondent/husband is an Engineer and earning Rs.1,00,000/- pm., and also have agriculture land and thereby earning Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. The trial Court after considering the documents and evidence on record, has dismissed the petition as against petitioner no.1/wife is concerned and partly allowed in favour of petitioners no.2 and 3 by directing respondent/husband to pay Rs.4,000/- each. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/wife has filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the petition against the petitioner No.1/wife. He further submitted that he is not going to seek any enhancement of maintenance, which is awarded by the trial Court in respect of petitioners No.2 and 3 and the petitioner No.1 is ready to submit documents, if this matter is remanded back to the trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 with a direction to provide an opportunity her to produce relevant documents before the trial Court as observed by the trial Court and sought for allowing of this petition. 5. Despite service of notice, respondent/husband remained absent and un-represented. 6. In the impugned order passed by the trial Court, at paragraph Nos.23 to 25, it is observed as under : “23. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is having a share in her ancestral properties as revealed by herself in the course of cross-examination. But neither the petitioner No.1 nor her father who was examined as P.W.2 did mention about the quantum of share of petitioner No.1 in her ancestral properties. Having not mentioned so despite of specific question posed to P.W.1 and 2 in this behalf in their respective cross-examination, the said non-answering cannot be ignored. Moreover, undisputedly the petitioner No.1 has not mentioned in her affidavit filed in respect of her assets and liability about her share in her ancestral properties. That the petitioner No.1 despite of having two bank S.B. Accounts has not adduced Bank Statements reflecting the upto date transactions. That nothing prevented the petitioner No.1 to adduce even the upto date nil transactions statements. These omissions on the part of petitioner No.1 underline that there is a force in the say of respondent that petitioner No.1 earns money by doing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 saree business as of now. These omissions without proper explanation enable this court to draw adverse inference as against petitioner No.1 vis-a-vis her earning capacity. 24. The fact that the petitioners as of now residing in the house constructed by respondent and his parents situated at Yerrangali village cannot be ignored. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons and basing on the materials placed before this court, this court feels that it is appropriate, just and proper to call upon the respondent- husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to petitioners 2 and 3. With these observations, this court has no option to dismiss the petition so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned and allow the same in part so far as petitioners 2 and 3 concerned. 25. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, this court answers Point No.1 in the affirmative, Point No.2 in the Negative so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned and in the affirmative so far as petitioners No.2 and 3 is concerned and Point No.3 partly in the affirmative so far as the petitioner No.2 and 3 is concerned and in the negative so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned and passes the following order; ORDER The petition preferred U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. by Smt.K.Ashwini @ K. Varsha for herself and on behalf of her two minor daughters is hereby dismissed so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned and the same is allowed in part so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned with a direction - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 to respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- each in favour of petitioners 2 and 3 monthly maintenance from the date of petition. The respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards cost of present petition.” 7. In view of above said finding, the trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner No.1/wife on the ground that petitioner No.1 despite having two savings accounts has not produced same before the trial Court and has also not mentioned as to her share in the ancestral properties. The learned counsel for the petitioners is ready to furnish the aforesaid particulars before the Court. 8. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.290/2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari dismissing the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 petition in respect of petitioner No.1/wife, is set aside. (iii) It is made clear that the monthly maintenance in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 is unaltered and they are entitled for the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month each, as awarded by the trial Court. (iv) The case is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to petitioner No.1/wife to produce documents before the trial Court as observed in paragraph no.23 of the impugned order. (v) The trial Court is also directed to provide an opportunity to both parties to adduce their additional evidence and also to file their better affidavits disclosing of assets and liabilities of the 1st petitioner as required as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in AIR 2021 SCC 569. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12942 RPFC No. 100228 of 2023 (vi) Send copy of this order to both Courts for further action. (vii) Send a copy of this order to the respondent/ husband through registered post acknowledgement due. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45