- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13851 RPFC No. 100061 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100061 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. MAMTAJBEGUM W/O. GULAMHUSSAINSAB SHISUVINALMULLA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. MULAGUND PAHAD, MULAGUND, TQ. DIST. GADAG. AADHAR CARD NO. 6775 2230 8974 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNESAHEB SHALAGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. GULAMHUSSAINSAB S/O. MODINSAB SHISUVINHALMULLA, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MULAGUND PAHAD, MULAGUND, TQ. DIST. GADAG, AADHAR CARD NO. 7886 1173 4978 MOBILE NO.8722047889. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-ABSENT) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS OF CRI.MISC. NO.121/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT GADAG DISPOSED OFF ON 01.03.2025. B. ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRI. MISC. NO.121/2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT GADAG DATED 01.03.2025 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A. C. ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY ENHANCING RS.25,000/- PER MONTH TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE RESPONDENT AS BASIC NEEDS FROM ALL HEADS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.18 10:51:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13851 RPFC No. 100061 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) The short point that arise for consideration is whether the quantum of the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court to the sum of ₹5,000/- per month is just reasonable and appropriate in the light of the evidence placed on record? 2. The petitioner aged about 63 years happens to be the wife of the respondent who is aged 68 years. The petitioner contending that the respondent has neglected her from maintaining properly, approached the Family Court at Gadag seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent appeared before the Family Court and admitted the relationship but contended that he also does not have sufficient income and it is the petitioner who had deserted him and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance. 3. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and one witness was examined on her behalf as PW.2. Ex.P.1 which is the RTC of the property held by the respondent was produced. The respondent was examined as RW.1 and no documents were - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13851 RPFC No. 100061 of 2025 marked on his behalf. After hearing the submissions by both the sides, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month and awarded litigation cost of ₹25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cross-examination of RW.1 clearly shows that he has about 4 acres 2 guntas of irrigated land and he is raising Jowar, Groundnut and Maize. He submits that the respondent has purchased a vehicle which is being plied between Mulagund and Gadag and he is also earning from the same. He further contends that the RTC produced by the petitioner would clearly establish that the respondent is raising the above mentioned crops. When the respondent is able to raise income from about 27 coconut trees and few other trees as admitted by him in the cross-examination and he is raising 2 crops per year, the maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month is meager and at this age, the petitioner is unable to maintain herself from the said maintenance. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13851 RPFC No. 100061 of 2025 5. On a careful perusal of the records, it is evident that in the cross-examination, RW.1 admits the following aspects. ”¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.3/1+2/J 4-JPÀgÉ 2-UÀÄAmÉ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄ ¹ÃvÁ®ºÀj UÁæªÀÄzÀ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ°èzÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ Rjâ¹zÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è 27-vÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀUÀ½ªÉ. ¥Àæw ªÀµÀð mÉAV£ÀPÁ¬Ä DUÀÄvÀÛªÉ. 1-J¼À¤ÃgÀÄ ¨É¯É ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 30-gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. MAzÀÄ VqÀzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 100-150-PÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÁUÀÄvÀÛªÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. 1- aPÀÄÌ VqÀ, 1-ªÀiÁ«£À VqÀ d«Ää£À°è EzÉ. d«Ää£À°è ªÀiÁ«£À VqÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨É¼É¹zÉÝãÉ. mÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¨É¼É¹zÀÝgÀÄ. d«Ää£À°è PÉƼÀªÉ ¨Á« EzÉ. ¤ÃgÁªÀj, ªÀĸÁj d«ÄãÀÄ EzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è ªÀµÀðPÉÌ 3-¨É¼É ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è 2-¨É¼É ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. d«Ää£À°è UÉÆë£À eÉÆüÀ, ±ÉÃAUÁ, vÀPÀgÁj ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. 1- JPÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50-QéAl¯ï ±ÉÃAUÁ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, 10-QéAl¯ï ±ÉÃAUÁ ¨É¼É §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ªÀµÀð ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 40-QéAl¯ï UÉÆë£À eÉÆüÀ DVzÉ. 1-QéAl¯ï UÉÆë£À eÉÆüÀzÀ ¨É¯É gÀÆ.2,200/- EzÉ. ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è ºÉaÑ£À ¨É¯É §gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ vÀgÀPÁj ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛêÉ. G¼ÁîUÀrØ ¨É¯É ªÀiÁr®è. vÀgÀPÀgÁj ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀµÀÖªÁUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ FUÀ UÉÆë£À eÉÆüÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÉÃAUÁ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛêÉ. lAlA UÁrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 14 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ gÀÆ. 1,50,000/-ºÀt PÉÆlÄÖ ±ÉÆÃgÀÆA ¤AzÀ Rjâ¹zÉÝ£ÀÄ. lAlA UÁrAiÀÄ°è ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀÄ PÀĽvÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄļÀUÀÄAzÀ¢AzÀ UÀzÀUÀ ªÀgÉUÉ lAlA £À°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀ£ÀÄß gÀªÁ¤¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÀÄļÀUÀÄAzÀ£À°è lAlA Nr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. lAl UÁr Nr¸À®Ä ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÉ. lAlA Nr¸ÀĪÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ±ËPÀvïC° ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ E¯Áè JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. EªÀvÀÄÛ lAlA £À°è Hj¤AzÀ §A¢zÉÝãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13851 RPFC No. 100061 of 2025 ±ËPÀvï C° F ¢£À lAlA £À°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝ£É. £À£Àß 5-d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÄrzÀÄ, vÀªÀÄä F ºÉArgÀÄ, ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁPÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁPÀĪÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥Á®£É ¥ÉÇõÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw CAzÀgÉ CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä CfðzÁgÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ CªÀjUÉ ºÉýzÉÝãÉ.” 6. Apart from the above, he also admits that about 1 ½ years back he had sold a house situated at Betageri for a sum of ₹9,20,000/-. It is the case of the respondent that he has asked the mother of the petitioner to look after her, which at any stretch of imagination cannot be accepted. It is evident that the children born to the petitioner and the respondent are major and they should also be in a position to maintain the petitioner and respondent. However, so far as the duty of the respondent towards the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be absolved for any reason. 7. Under these circumstances, considering the nature of the property held by the respondent and the nature of the crops being grown in the same, it would be just, proper and reasonable to direct the respondent to pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13851 RPFC No. 100061 of 2025 8. In that view of the matter, the Family Court appears to have erred and as such, the said order of the Family Court is modified accordingly. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The respondent shall pay a sum of ₹10,000/- per month from the date of this petition until further orders. ii) The revision petition is disposed of. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52