- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.200112 OF 2023 BETWEEN: RAVINDRAKUMAR S/O SHIVAPPAGOUDA @ SHIVAGOUDA CHANSHETTY AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. ANABI VILLAGE, TQ. SHAHAPUR DIST. YADGIR – 585 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJAY KULKARNI,ADVOCATE) AND: RENUKA W/O RAVINDRAKUMAR CHANSHETTY, AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O. KARBASAPPA PATIL, MAHARAJ LAYOUT PLOT NO. 70, KARUNESHWAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI – 585 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B SANGOLAGI,ADVOCATE) THIS REVISION PETITION OF FAMILY COURT UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF MAINTENANCE TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT KALABURAGI PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.63/2019 DATED 05.06.2023 AFTER CALLING FOR RECORDS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) This petition is by the husband challenging the impugned order passed in Crl.Misc.No.63/2019 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of respondent No.1-wife, despite the fact that in the compromise entered into between the parties in Crl.Misc.No.59/2008 permanent alimony was granted in favour of both respondent. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to law, procedure and evidence placed on record and liable to be set aside. In Crl.Misc.No.59/2008, the parties have entered into a compromise and petitioner has paid permanent alimony - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 in a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-. Despite the said fact brought to the notice of the trial Court it is ignored by the Family Court. Without challenging the compromise it is not open to the respondent to claim otherwise. 3. Petitioner has disputed the paternity of respondent No.2 and in fact in Crl.Misc.No.59/2008 his application for DNA testing for ascertaining the paternity of respondent No.2 was allowed and before steps could be taken for sending blood samples, respondents came forward for a compromise and the said petition ended up, in petitioner paying Rs.3,40,000/- as permanent alimony to respondents. Such being the case once again respondent cannot maintain a new petition for maintenance and it is clearly barred. Without appreciating these aspects the Family Court has passed the impugned order and pray to set aside the same and dismiss the petition filed by the respondents. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 6. The marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 is no other than the daughter of elder sister of petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the marriage respondent No.1 stayed in the matrimonial home only for one and half months. Petitioner has disputed that respondent No.2 is born to him. On the other hand respondent No.1 claimed that she stayed in the matrimonial home for one and half years and went to her parental home for delivery. After words she was not allowed to entered the matrimonial home. She has also alleged that petitioner is having illicit relationship with one Mahananda and having two children through her. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 7. With these allegations, respondents approach the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.59/2008 U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. In the objections filed to the said petition also petitioner herein disputed the paternity of respondent No.2. In the said petition there was an order for grant of interim maintenance in favour of respondents and on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the same, the Family Court struck of his defence and proceed to allow the petition ex-parte. Against the said order, petitioner filed RPFC No.534/2009. It was allowed on 16.10.2009 and case was remanded for fresh disposal. 8. After the remand a detailed enquiry was held, wherein both parties led elaborate evidence. In order to establish that petitioner is not the biological father of the respondent No.2, he filed application for DNA testing of blood samples of petitioner and respondents. It was allowed and in fact all arrangements were made to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 collect the blood samples of petitioner and respondents. At this stage, petitioner and respondents entered into a compromise according to which petitioner paid permanent alimony in a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the respondents and the petition came to be allowed in terms of the said compromise. Ex.P23 and 24 are the certified copy of the compromise petition and order sheet in Crl.Misc.No.59/2008. 9. Once again the respondents have come up with a fresh petition in Crl.Misc.No.63/2019 seeking maintenance contending that in Crl.Misc.No.59/2008 the petitioner had promised to pay permanent alimony in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, but in the compromise petition it is noted as Rs.3,40,000/- and hurriedly the signature of respondent No.1 was taken to the compromise petition and at that time, petitioner had promised that he would pay the balance but failed to do so. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 10. Admittedly, respondents have not challenged the compromise petition on these grounds. In fact Ex.P24 which is the order sheet reveal that both parties and their counsel were present before the Family Court and the terms of the compromise were read over and explained to them by the Court. They admitted contents and execution. The Family Court accepted the terms of the compromise. The advocate for respondent No.1 who was petitioner No.1 in the said petition counted the amount in the open court and paid it to her. After being satisfied that the compromise is equitable and legal the Family Court accepted the compromise and disposed of the petition in terms of the compromise. 11. After expiry of nearly 7 years, the respondents have once again, come up with a fresh petition seeking maintenance contending that petitioner herein misled and cheated them by promising to pay Rs.30,00,000/- as permanent alimony, but paid only - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 Rs.3,40,000/-etc. Admittedly, respondents have not challenged the said compromise. If at all the compromise entered between the parties is not legal and equitable, proper course available to them was to challenge it before the higher court or atleast convince trial Court about the same and get it recalled. In that event, the right of the petitioner to challenge the paternity of respondent No.2 would have revived and he could have got opportunity to send the blood samples of himself and respondent No.2 for DNA testing. 12. Having misled the petitioner into a compromise, the respondents have taken advantage by preventing him from establishing that he is not the biological father of respondent No.2, received the permanent alimony and after 7 years have come up with a fresh petition. When the petitioner has raise the question of maintainability, instead of deciding the said issue, the trial Court has gone into the question of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 adequacy of permanent alimony. At the time when the respondents accepted the permanent alimony, they might have thought it adequate, which may appears to be low when the present petition was filed during 2019. In a situation wherein the paternity of respondent No.2 was questioned, probably the respondent No.1 might have thought it proper to accept permanent alimony and there by escaping the ignominy of facing the predicament of branding the respondent No.2 as the illegitimate child. Having regard to the fact that, when the compromise was recorded, respondent No.1 did not object for the same and also claim that it was not the sum for which she agreed for settlement, it is doubtful whether there was any promise for payment for Rs.30,00,000/-. It appears to be a ground created for maintaining a fresh petition. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 13. If at all respondents feel that they were tricked into settlement for a paltry sum, they are at liberty to challenge the said order and get the matter reopened. In that event, the petitioner would also get an opportunity to prosecute his application for DNA testing to ascertain the paternity of respondent No.2 and thereafter the court can proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Of course, the respondents would also be answerable to sum of Rs.3,40,000/- received by them by way of permanent alimony. With these observations, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner/husband U/s 19(4) of Family Courts Act is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.06.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.63/2019 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, is set aside. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:983 RPFC No. 200112 of 2023 The respondents are liberty to challenge the compromise dated 30.03.2012 entered into between them and the petitioner herein in Crl.Misc.No.59/2008, in accordance with law, if they are so advised. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49