- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34962 RPFC No. 60 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.60 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ S/O LATE K. SUBHAN SAHIB, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, S-2, SANNY SIDE APARTMENT, MARIAMMA TEMPLE STREET, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 084. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED NAUSHIRVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT NAMRA D/O C. ABDUL AZEEM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.998, 14TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, 16TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, HBR LAYOUT, NAGWARA, BANGALORE – 560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH T, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.538/2018 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34962 RPFC No. 60 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.538/2018 dated 30.12.2024 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife, the husband is before this Court seeking to set aside the said order. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband submits that parties are residing separately from 2012 and in the year 2012, the wife had sought for maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by filing Crl.Misc.No.346/2012 and the MMTC-I, Bengaluru, had allowed the said Criminal Miscellaneous on 30.06.2014 by directing the husband to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent and Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34962 RPFC No. 60 of 2025 Crl.A.No.25112/2014 and the Appellate Court by order dated 06.10.2015 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.346/2012 dated 30.06.2014 and dismissed the said Criminal Miscellaneous. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Crl.Misc.No.346/2012, the wife filed Crl.RP No.1175/2015 before this Court and co-ordinate bench of this Court allowed the said Revision petition and set aside the order dated 06.10.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.25112/2014 and upheld the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.346/2012 dated 30.06.2014. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the wife is not entitled to claim simultaneous maintenance under different Acts. It is submitted that when the wife had already filed an application for maintenance under Section 12 the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and is receiving maintenance of an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month, the said fact was not been brought to the notice of the Family Court while filing Crl.Misc.No.538/2018 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. It is submitted that the husband has to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.9,000/- plus Rs.15,000/- to the wife, which comes to an amount of Rs.24,000/- per month - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34962 RPFC No. 60 of 2025 and further submits that he is not in a position to pay the said maintenance as he has lost his job. It is the contention of the husband that since the petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has already attained finality, the impugned order needs to be set aside and he will pay maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- per month to the wife. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that wife is suffering from autoimmune disease and heart ailments and she requires money for her treatment. He submits that maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- per month granted by the family Court, from 2012 till now comes to more than Rs.13 lakhs, out of which only Rs.2 lakhs has been paid by the husband. It is submitted that inspite of wife undergoing such critical health conditions, the husband is neither taking care of her nor paying the maintenance to the wife. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/wife is that there is no suppression by the wife and she disclosed everything before the Family Court. It is submitted that considering the health condition of the wife, the Family Court has rightly considered and passed orders and no interference is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34962 RPFC No. 60 of 2025 called for. It is further submitted that even the income tax returns placed before the Court shows that husband has a gross income of Rs.8,94,252/-. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in the year 2012, wherein, the wife was granted maintenance of sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. The said order was challenged by both the husband and wife and the matter attained finality in the January 2025. Admittedly, the husband has paid more than a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the wife. There is no dispute about the fact that the wife is suffering from autoimmune disease as well as heart ailments and requires continuous treatment. It is the case of the respondent/wife that she is having several health complications. The Family Court had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another1 and granted maintenance. In view of the health condition of the wife and clear conduct on the part of the 1 AIR 2021 SC 569 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34962 RPFC No. 60 of 2025 husband that inspite of the order of the Court, till now he has paid only meager amount towards maintenance, which clearly shows that husband has no respect to the orders of the Court and no concern for his wife, who is suffering with health ailments. Under these circumstances, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (ii) All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29