- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:734 WP No. 103565 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103565 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SHRI PAVAN S/O MALLIKARJUN SAVADI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O ATHANI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591 304. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. AMRUTA W/O PAVAN SAVADI AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O B/56, LAXMI COTTON DRESSING FACTORY 2ND CROSS, K.C.NAGAR BAILHONGAL BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591 102. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1/3/2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 BY THE COURT ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATHANI IN M.C.NO.76/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:734 WP No. 103565 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - husband is before this Court calling in question an order dated 01.03.2023 in IA No. 1 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, in M.C. No. 76/2021, by which the court directs payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. each to the respondent - wife and the minor daughter and also payment of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the wife by the husband. 2. Heard Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice is not issued to the respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The two get married on 07.07.2018. From the said wedlock a female child was born on 27.06.2019. It transpires that the relationship between the husband and the wife flounders and on floundering of such relationship, the husband was before the Family Court in M.C. No. 76/2021 seeking divorce. The issue in the lis does not concern the proceedings before the concerned - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:734 WP No. 103565 of 2023 Court. The wife files an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act for short) seeking interim maintenance at the hands of the husband. The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned, grants interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. each to the wife and the minor daughter. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner - husband is a coconut vendor whose business is running in losses; has no financial stability to pay maintenance to the wife and minor daughter and that the trial court has erroneously passed the impugned order by not properly considering his monthly income. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the available material on record. 6. The parties to the lis were before the concerned Court in M.C.No.76/2021 is a matter of record. The respondent - wife files an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:734 WP No. 103565 of 2023 maintenance, on the score that she is physically weak and unable to work to earn for maintaining herself and her minor daughter. Her husband is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m. from coconut business and owns agricultural land. The concerned Court after considering the documents available on record and contentions of both the parties, by its order, grants interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. each to the wife and minor daughter to be paid by the husband. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the family court has erroneously granted the interim maintenance without properly considering the monthly income of the husband is unacceptable. The husband being an able bodied man is expected to work and take care of the wife and minor daughter. Any interference in the order that is impugned would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG1. The Apex Court has held as follows: “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 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:734 WP No. 103565 of 2023 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 Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:734 WP No. 103565 of 2023 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:734 WP No. 103565 of 2023 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 adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Court directing payment of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. each as interim maintenance to the wife and minor daughter and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses, by the husband. 8. The writ petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. Interim order granted earlier, if any, stands dissolved. _______SD/-__________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA VNP/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:SS