- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 172 OF 2023 C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 18 OF 2024 IN RPFC No. 172/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. SHASHIKIRAN H.K., S/O LATE KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.580, RAJ BHAVAN, 4TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, A1 BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA III STAGE, MYSURU – 17 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE- ABSENT) AND: 1. SMT.SURYAPRABHA J. @ PALLAVI W/O SHASHIKIRAN, D/O JOGI SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. KUMARI. TANISHKA S.KIRAN D/O SHASHIKIRAN AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SURYAPRABHA J., @ PALLAVI BOTH ARE R/AT NO.205, HANCHAYA VILLAGE, SATHAGALLI, MYSORE TALUK, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 MYSORE DISTRICT-570 019 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS MINOR- REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.589/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR SEEKING MAINTENANCE. IN RPFC NO. 18/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SURYAPRABHA J. @ PALLAVI W/O SHASHIKIRAN D/O JOGI SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. KUM.TANISHKA S.KIRAN D/O SHASHIKIRAN AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SURYAPRABHA J @ PALLAVI BOTH ARE R/O HANCHYA VILLAGE, SATHAGALLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 019 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.SHASHIKIRAN H.K. S/O LATE KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.580, RAJ BHAVAN 4TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, A1 BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA III STAGE, MYSURU – 570 017 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.RAJESH, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.589/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.589/2020 dated 04.01.2022 by the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the wife and the child, both the husband and the wife are before this Court. The husband’s petition is RPFC.No.172/2023 and the wife’s petition is RPFC.18/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. When these matters came up on 28.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of both the husband and the wife. Hence, the matters were directed to be listed today under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 the caption for “dismissal”. Today, learned counsel for the wife is present, but there is no representation on behalf of the husband. 4. It is the case that the wife had filed Crl.Misc. No.589/2020 seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.75,000/- per month to herself and the child. It is the case of the wife that the marriage has taken place on 13.11.2013 at Mysore. In the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter. It is her case that when she was pregnant, the husband went abroad on 18.05.2014. It is stated that in the year 2016, again the husband went abroad. In the year 2019 he went to London. It is the case of the wife that the husband is earning an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month and is owning two storied house at prime area of Vijayanagara, Mysore and also having 8 acres of ancestral landed properties. The husband has filed his objections. He had denied all the allegations made by the wife. In his objections, it is stated that the wife is employed at Fine Arts Music College, Mysore University, as a teacher and earning a handsome salary and her father is also financially well planned and she do not require any maintenance. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 5. The Family Court, by order impugned, had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- each to the wife and the daughter. While granting the said maintenance, the Family Court had observed that according to the wife, the husband is working as a Software Engineer at Quest Global Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Company at Bengaluru and is getting handsome salary of an amount Rs.2,50,000/- per month, he is having landed properties and also a two storied building. The same were denied by the husband. The Family Court had observed that though the wife has stated so many things, she has not produced any document to show that the husband is earning an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month from his avocation and is owning two storied house, 8 acres of ancestral landed property, two cars and three two wheelers, but in the wedding invitation it is shown as he is a B.E. (Mech.) graduate and is working as Senior Engineer at Quest Global Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Company at Bangalore. The Family Court considering the qualification of the husband and basing on the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the wife has no means to support herself and had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- each to the wife and the child. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that on behalf of the wife, she has examined herself as PW1 and on her behalf Ex.P.1 to 10 are marked. The husband has not entered into the witness box and he has not adduced any evidence and no documents are marked on his behalf. It is further submitted that when the husband has not entered into the witness box, when she has adduced her evidence and she has not cross examined, an adverse inference need to be drawn and the Family Court ought to have granted the maintenance as per the claim made by the wife. It is submitted that in the year 2013 when a person is working as a Senior Manager, now it is not open for him to say that he is not working. It is also submitted that she is not in a position to place any documents before the Family Court as those documents are not in her possession and even to cross examine on all these aspects, he has not come before the Family Court. In these circumstances, the Family Court ought to have granted the maintenance as sought for by the wife. 7. On 28.08.2025, when these matters came up there was no representation on behalf of the husband and today also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 there is no representation on behalf of the husband. Hence, this Court is proceeding with the matter basing on the materialavailable on record. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the wife, perused the material on record. When it is the case of the wife that as per the wedding card, the husband is working as a Senior Manager in Bangalore and his income is Rs.2,50,000/- per month, except filing the statement of assets and liabilities showing that he has no income. Neither he has cross examined the wife nor he has adduced any evidence in support of his case, all these things clearly shows that there is an intention on the part of the husband to suppress the material facts and in the examination-in-chief whatever the wife has stated, that has to be considered by the Family Court as there is no cross examination or the husband got himself examined and non appearance of the husband even before this Court on the last occasion and today shows that only with an intention to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife, he is not appearing before the Courts. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37799 RPFC No. 172 of 2023 C/W RPFC No. 18 of 2024 ORDER i. RPFC.No.172/2023 filed by the husband is dismissed. ii. RPFC.No.18/2024 filed by the wife is allowed by granting maintenance of an amount of Rs.75,000/- per month to both the wife and the daughter. iii. All I.As., in both the petitions shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1