- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035 RPFC No. 100035 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100035 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. ANNAPURANA B., W/O. P. PUNEETH KUMAR, D/O B. ADIKESHUVULU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO. 1282-1, KONDAMMA STREET NEAR REDDY STREET, BALLARI - 583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY AND SMT. Y. MALATHI REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI. P. PUNEETH KUAR ALIYAS PORAL PUNEETH KUMAR, S/O. VENKATESHULU ALIYAS P. VENKATESHULU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. BANK MANAGER, MAHARASHTRA BANK, R/O. SRI. VITHAL APARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO. 2680/F/1 NEAR ARJUN THEATER, MAHADEVA TEMPLE ROAD, KARWAR – 581301. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVARJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.30/2023 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRL. JUDGE (FAMILY COURT), BALLARI BY GRANTING MAINTENANCE TO PETITIONER. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.17 11:49:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035 RPFC No. 100035 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.12.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.30/2023 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’), dismissing the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 26.08.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner lived in matrimonial home for few months and was constrained to leave the matrimonial home as the respondent and his family members were ill-treating the petitioner, so also suspected the character of the petitioner and used to check her mobile call logs secretly. Hence, the petitioner left the matrimonial home. It is also stated that, the petitioner has lodged complaint before the Women Police Station for the offences punishable under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035 RPFC No. 100035 of 2024 Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and same is registered as Crime No.188/2022. 4. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the petitioner has left the matrimonial home without any cause and the petitioner is graduate in Engineering and also working. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Family Court after considering the material on record dismissed the petition on the ground that, the petitioner is a B.E. graduate and her father is head of Private Math. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the reasons assigned by the Family Court is without any basis as the petitioner is not working and residing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035 RPFC No. 100035 of 2024 along with her parents, were aged and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order stating that the petitioner is a B.E. graduate and gainfully employed and therefore, sought to confirm the impugned order. 9. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 26.08.2021. On perusal of the impugned order would indicate that, the petitioner herein has lodged criminal case against the respondent and his family members in Crime No.188/2022. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is not working and residing with her parents. The respondent has not produced any documents to establish that the petitioner is working and therefore, the Family Court has committed an error and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is a B.E. graduate and capable of earning. It is very strange how the Family Court has concluded that, the father of the petitioner is the head of Private Math and he is having means to take care of his daughter. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035 RPFC No. 100035 of 2024 10. Taking into account the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another1, it is held that remedy of maintenance is measure of social justice as envisaged under the Constitution of India to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy. It is also to be noted that, merely because wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reject the application in the absence of acceptable evidence that the petitioner/wife is working (see AIR 2017 SC 1174). 11. In that view of the matter, the petition requires to be allowed and remitted the matter to the Family Court for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the right perspective. 12. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 28.12.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.30/2023 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, is set aside and mater is remitted to the Family 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3035 RPFC No. 100035 of 2024 Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. (iii) Since, the parties are represented through their learned counsel and in order to avoid further delay in the matter, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 17.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m. (iv) On their appearance it is open for the parties to lead evidence if any, in the matter and Family Court is directed to dispose the same at the earliest. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18