- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5398 RPFC No. 100112 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. 100112 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: 1. BINDU W/O. SHONEY KK. AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 2. GLORIA D/O. SHONEY KK, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SEBASTIAN S/O. SHONEY KK, AGE: 15 YEAS, OCC: STUDENT, (THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. PETITIONER NO.1) ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF HOUSE NO.2 BEHIND CHOWDHARY COMPLEX, NEAR MARY MATHA CHURCH, SATYAVANI NAGAR, AIRPORT KOLAGAL ROAD, DIST: BALLARI-587101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SHONEY KK S/O. KURIAKOSE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NEURO TECHNOLOGIST IN NARYANA HRUDAYALAYA, BOMMASANDRA HEALTH CITY, BENGALURU, R/O. BOMMASANDRA, DIST: BENGALURU-560099. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5398 RPFC No. 100112 of 2024 JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 45/2021 AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER NO.1, CONSEQUENTIALLY, ENHANCE JUST AND REASONABLE MAINTENANCE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.45/2021 challenging the order dated 24.02.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ballari (for short “the Family Court”) seeking enhancement of maintenance. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 02.03.2006 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was ill-treating the petitioners and suspecting the character of petitioner No.1 besides making demand for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5398 RPFC No. 100112 of 2024 additional dowry and as such, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home and residing separately. 3.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband appeared before the Family Court and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition. It is the specific case of the respondent-husband that the petitioner No.1-wife was adamant and not taking care of the family and she forcibly had taken the children and settled at Jatkal village of Kundapur Taluk. It is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner No.1 had already married to her maternal uncle/Prasannakumar on 19.12.2004 and despite the same, she married the respondent and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 3.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 24.02.2023 granted maintenance of ₹10,000/- each to petitioner No.2 and 3, however dismissed the petition of petitioner No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the same as inadequate the petitioners have filed this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5398 RPFC No. 100112 of 2024 4. I have heard Sri.Srinivas B Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.A Veeranna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Sri.Srinivas B Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to paragraph 18 of the impugned order and submitted that as the respondent-husband is working at Narayana Hridayalaya at Bengaluru and as per Ex.P6 the gross salary of the respondent-husband is ₹1,03,708/- per month, the award of maintenance is on lesser side, which requires to be enhanced. It is also submitted by Sri. Srinivas B Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Family Court has committed an error in not granting maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. A Veeranna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, has invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and submitted that the petitioner No.1 had married her maternal uncle during 2004 and the said aspect was ignored by the Family Court. He also referred to the evidence of RW2 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5398 RPFC No. 100112 of 2024 submitted that the petitioner No.2 and 3 are residing with their grandmother/RW2 and the petitioner No.1 is not taking care of the children and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. In order to buttress his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State Of Gujarat and others1 and submitted that the order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., has to be granted only to the legally married wife and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and a careful examination of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 02.03.2006 and in their wedlock two children (petitioner No.2 and 3) were born. 8. Insofar as submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner No.1 was 1 (2005) 3 SCC 636 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5398 RPFC No. 100112 of 2024 earlier married to her maternal uncle and further the children/petitioner No.2 and 3 are residing with their grandmother/RW2, I am of the view that the legality of the marriage cannot be considered under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and taking into account the scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and following the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan2, I am of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband cannot be accepted in respect of allegation relating to illegality of the marriage of petitioner No.1. Taking into account the finding recorded by the Family Court that the petitioner No.1 is working as a teacher, I am of the view that the award of maintenance denied to the petitioner No.1 is just and proper. However, insofar as grant of maintenance to petitioner No.2 and 3 (children) is concerned, taking into consideration the educational prospects of petitioner No.2 and 3 and as the respondent is working at Narayana Hridayalaya Bengaluru and getting salary as mentioned above, and taking into consideration the status of the respondent, the petitioner No.2 2 AIR 2015 SC 2025 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5398 RPFC No. 100112 of 2024 and 3 are entitled to ₹15,000/- each per month as maintenance and therefore, the petition stands allowed in part directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- each to petitioner No.2 and 3. 9. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14