- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100057 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. SAI PRASAD S/O KANDURI SUBBAYA, AGED 26 YEARS, OCC: WORKING, R/O. D.NO.4-421, CHANDRBABU NAGAR, RUDRAMPETA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, STATE: ANDRPRADESH-515004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARAN GUPTA & SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATES) AND: P. MOUNIKA W/O. SAI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: WORKING, R/O. VADDARABANDA, TGS COMPLEX, OPP. BALIJA BHAVAN, BALAJI ROAD, BELLARY-583101. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRL.MISC.NO.384/2022 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BELLARY IN CRL.MISC.NO.384/2022 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 MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.384 of 2024 challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal Judge Family Court, Bellari, granting maintenance to the petitioner therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 10.11.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner was residing at matrimonial home for about three months only. It is further stated in the claim petition that, the petitioner- wife was subjected to mental harassment and that apart, respondent-husband was not taking care of needs of the petitioner-wife. It is also alleged that, respondent- husband is having illicit relationship with another woman. It is further stated that, during month of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 January, 2022, the respondent and his parents have thrown out the petitioner from the matrimonial home and as such, the petitioner is residing with her parents. Hence, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.384 of 2022, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner-wife has thrown hot water on the respondent and caused injury to him. She also picked quarrel with him as well as his parents for flimsy grounds and the petitioner-wife is not a dutiful wife and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 18.03.2025 allowed the petition in part and awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner. Feeling - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred this petition. 6. I have heard Sri. Karan Gupta, learned counsel along with learned counsel, Sri. Prashant Matapati, appearing for the petitioner. 7. Sri. Karan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that finding recorded by the Family Court requires to be interfered with in this Revision Petition on the ground that, the Family Court has solely relied upon the evidence of the respondent- wife and also not considered the material on record with regard to payment of maintenance is concerned. It is also submitted that the petitioner herein was deprived of fair opportunity during the evidence, and also no opportunity is provided to the petitioner herein to prove Bank Statement/Pay Slip and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It also argued that the respondent-wife is B.Com Graduate and capable of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 earning for her livelihood and therefore, the finding recorded by the Family Court requires interference in this petition. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Family Court. It is not in dispute that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 10.11.2021 and thereafter, on account of family rift, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home. The main allegation made by the petitioner-wife was that, the respondent-husband had illicit contact with another woman and was not providing basic amenities to the petitioner-wife. It also stated in the claim petition that, the petitioner was thrown out from the matrimonial home by the respondent and his parents. The fact makes it clear that, the parties are residing separately. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 Perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the respondent-husband has not filed the salary slip, wherein, the respondent-husband is working as Software Engineer at Accenture company. I have carefully examined the documents produced at Exs.R1 to R15 by the respondent-husband and these documents cannot be considered for the purpose of quantification of the maintenance, since, the respondent deliberately withhold his salary slip, which makes it clear that, being a Software Engineer, the respondent should have produced his salary slip before the Family Court to quantify the maintenance to be payable to the respondent herein. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the petitioner-wife that, the respondent is having illicit relationship with another woman as well as she has not been given basic necessities and also considering the scope and ambit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a measure of social justice to prevent the wife and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 the petition deserves to be dismissed. It also established principle in law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and another vs. Khobbanna reported AIR 2017 SC 1174, that, merely because of wife is capable of earning is not sufficient reason to interfere with the maintenance granted by the Family Court. Undisputedly, the petitioner herein is a Software Engineer and the perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court would indicate that, the petitioner herein has deliberately withhold the salary certificate to be produced before the Family Court and taking into consideration, the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and another reported in (2025) 2 SCC 49 and in the case of Rina Kumar @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato reported in AIR 2025 SC 644, I am of the view that, arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6981 RPFC No. 100057 of 2025 accepted. It also to be noted that, the respondent- husband produced 15 documents before the Family Court as Exs.R1 to R15 and now before this Court cannot agitate that he has been deprived of fair opportunity and the said submission cannot be accepted. Hence, Revision Petition is rejected as devoid of merits by confirming the order passed by the Family Court in granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month in Crl.Misc.No.384 of 2022 to the petitioner-wife. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22