- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 106776 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: UMESH S/O. BHAIRU CHOUGULE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. PLOT NO.14, KALMESHWAR NIVAS, 6TH CROSS, SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ASHA W/O. UMESH CHOUGULE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANGA NIVAS, BURUD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590010. 2. KUMARI. BHUMIKA D/O. UMESH CHOUGULE, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GANGA NIVAS, BURUD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590010. 3. KUMAR. SAMARTH S/O. UMESH CHOUGULE AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GANGA NIVAS, BURUD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH S. TORAGAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH ORDER THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRL. MISC. NO.176/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, dated 24.07.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.176/2022. 2. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner and respondent No.1. The respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’, for short) seeking maintenance against the petitioner. During the pendency of the main petition, an interim application was filed under Section 125(1) for interim maintenance, which on contest by the petitioner and on hearing the parties to both the proceedings, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Belagavi, passed an order partly allowing the application and ordered interim maintenance to be paid at Rs.10,000/- per - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. While disposing of the said petition, the assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner was taken into consideration. In the assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner, he has clearly stated in the column of “Monthly Income by the respondent” as ‘NIL’. Though he has stated that, he also does not have any income in the “Details of his income”, he has stated that, ‘mother and brother are depending upon him’. It is not clearly stated as to what is the income of the petitioner in the assets and liability. But in the impugned order, it is stated that the brother of the petitioner is paying pocket money of Rs.6,000/- to take care of his personal expenses and he is unable to work and earn for himself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and exorbitant considering the fact that the petitioner is not having any source of financial income, no material has been placed by the respondent to show that the petitioner is earning - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 Rs.80,000/- per month as stated in her affidavit. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement made by respondent No.4 is false. The petitioner is only getting pocket money of Rs.6,000/- per month from his brother as a goodwill gesture for his maintenance and he is unable to work and earn to support his family. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel contends that this Court while passing the interim order ordered the petitioner to pay 65% of the amount awarded by the Family Court and the petitioner could establish his case in the course of trial before the family Court. On these grounds, he seeks to allow this petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that admittedly even according to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is unemployed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not disputed to be the children of the petitioner, so also their age, avocation and the educational expenses which are incurred by the respondents. In the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 assets and liability filed by the petitioner, learned counsel contends that, the petitioner has stated that his mother and brother are depending upon him whereas during the course of arguments, he contends that the brother is maintaining the petitioner by paying pocket expenses of Rs.6,000/- which itself shows the conduct of the petitioner not being truthful. It is not the case of the petitioner that, he has paid any amount of educational expenses of the children during the course of their education. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is justifiable in case the petitioner is able to establish otherwise, it can be decided in the trial that is to be conducted. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. In matrimonial proceedings, where maintenance is sought by the wife and children against the husband, fundamental requirement for the Court is to see the income of the husband and income of the wife and the minority of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 the children and their educational expenses. In case, wife is not employed then it becomes the liability and duty cast upon the husband to take care of the maintenance of the wife and as well as children. In the present case on hand, admittedly, the assets and liability filed by the petitioner- husband he has stated that respondent No.1-wife is unemployed and she is not having any source of income though he has not clearly stated his income. The children- respondent Nos.2 and 3 are school going. Together it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that they would incur about Rs.1,20,000/- per year, i.e. to an extent of Rs.80,000/- for respondent No.2 and Rs.40,000/- to respondent No.3. It is for the petitioner to establish that he has no source of income and that he is unemployed and the respondent is capable of working, to either reduce or deny maintenance to the respondents. Even if the petitioner is unemployed, the fundamental rule in case of awarding maintenance if the petitioner is an able bodied person he is liable and it is his duty to take care of the maintenance and expenses of the wife and the minor children. Under the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 circumstances, the Family Court has considered all these aspects and awarded Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3, which in my opinion appears to be reasonable towards the maintenance. 8. Nevertheless, be that as it may. If the petitioner is able to establish otherwise that respondent No.1 is working and earning during the course of trial and place any such other material of his inability to pay maintenance for whatsoever reason including his physical or mental disability, such material may be placed before the Family Court in the trial. The Family Court shall consider the same and pass suitable orders after hearing the other side. 9. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order: The petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to place all such material in his possession to show that he is incapable of earning due to his mental or physical - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7403 WP No. 106776 of 2023 disability and upon production of any such document, the Family Court shall deal with the same and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE kmv CT-MCK