- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100170 OF 2024 (-) C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100234 OF 2024 IN R.P.F.C. NO. 100170/2024 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. ROHITH S/O. RAMAKRISHNA, AGE: 09 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP/BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA, BOTH ARE R/O. D.NO.127, W.NO.29, GOUTHAM NAGAR, BELAGAL CROSS, COWL BAZAAR, DIST: BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: RAMAKRISHNA S/O. NAGENDRAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: R/O. K. BELAGALLU VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583121. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.73/2022 AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 MAINTENANCE TO THE PRESENT CONCERN PETITIONER NO.1 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN R.P.F.C. NO.100234/2024 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI RAMAKRISHNA S/O. NAGENDRAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: R/O. K. BELAGALLU VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583121. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.4, BADIGERU PAMPI ONI, K. BELAGALLU VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583121. 2. ROHIT SON OF RAMAKRISHNA AGE: 09 YEARS, STUDENT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.10.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT AT BALLARI IN CRIL. MISC. NO.73/2022 TO THE EXTENT OF AWARDING MAINTENANCE TO RESPONDENT NO. 2/ROHITH FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER RPFC No.100170/2024 is filed by the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.73/2022, challenging the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Family Court”), seeking enhancement of maintenance. 2. RPFC No.100234/2024 is filed by the respondent-husband in Criminal Miscellaneous No.73/2022, challenging the order granting maintenance to the petitioner No.2 therein. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 09.06.2006 and in their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 the respondent was not taking care of the petitioners and that the respondent-husband and his family members were ill-treating the petitioner No.1-wife and therefore, she left the matrimonial home and residing separately and hence, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.73/2022 seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 5. On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection denying the relationship with the petitioner No.1 that, she is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. 6. The Family Court after considering the material on record by its order dated 18.10.2023 dismissed the petition insofar as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, and granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has filed RPFC No.100234/2024 and petitioner No.1 has filed RPFC No.100170/2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 7. I have heard Sri. S. B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in RPFC No.100170/2024 and Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100234/2024. 8. Sri. S. B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, though the respondent – husband has stated that, the petitioner No.1 is not his wife however, admits that the petitioner No.2 is his son, that itself will makes it clear that, the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 8.1. It is also contended by Sri. S. B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, grant of maintenance to the respondent No.2 is meagre which requires to be enhanced. 9. Per contra, Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – husband submitted that, the petitioner No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 respondent-husband and further submitted that, the respondent is working at Gram Panchayat of Belagavi Village, Shirguppa Taluk on contract basis and therefore, the award of maintenance granted by the Family Court is on the higher side which requires interference by this Court. 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. The finding recorded by the Family Court would makes it clear that, one Manjamma is the first wife of the respondent and through her two children were born to the respondent. It is also forthcoming from the evidence of RW1 who admits that, the petitioner No.2 is his son. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the Family Court denying maintenance to the petitioner No.1 is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 Kushwaha1, where it is held that, the strict proof of marriage is not condition precedent for awarding maintenance. In that view of the matter, to that extent the matter requires to be remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration. 11. Insofar as, award of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner No.2 is just and proper by looking to the finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph No.11 is concerned and therefore, no interference is requires for enhancement of maintenance insofar as, the petitioner No.2 is concerned. 12. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) RPFC No.100170/2024 is allowed in part and matter is remitted to the Family Court to reconsider the case afresh to grant maintenance to the petitioner No.1 is concerned. 1 (2011) 1 SCC 141 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5401 RPFC No. 100170 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100234 of 2024 ii) Since, the parties are represented by their learned counsel, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 28.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m., without waiting for further notice from the Family Court. iii) RPFC No.100234/2024 is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16