- 1 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 RESERVED ON : 08.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100089 OF 2025 BETWEEN: BHIMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA SIDDAPUR @ JANAMATTI AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN 587117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SEETAVVA W/O. BHIMAPPA SIDDAPUR @ JANAMATTI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BEVINAMATTI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN 587103. …RESPONDENT (SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED BY IN CRL.MISC.NO.83/2022 BY THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-G. IN THIS CIVIL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.19 15:12:40 +0530 - 2 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The petitioner in this revision petition is challenging the order dated 13th February, 2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.83 of 2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkot (for short, “the Family Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this revision `petition are that, the petitioner-Seetavva filed petition under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.45 of 1996 seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter-Sridevi and vide order dated 09th October, 1997, Rs.300/- was awarded as maintenance. The respondent has not properly paid the maintenance; she has raised loan and got married her daughter; now she is suffering from health issues and the maintenance amount of Rs.300/- is very meager and her expenses have increased and the price of household articles have also become multifold. It is stated that - 3 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 the respondent-husband retired as First Division Assistant from the office of Executive Officer, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited and had received Rs.15,00,000/- as retirement benefits, receiving pension of Rs.40,000/- per month and also has four acres of land. On all these grounds it was sought for awarding the monthly maintenance at Rs.20,000/- per month. 4. The respondent appeared and filed objections, however admitted the marriage and birth of daughter and also filing of Criminal Miscellaneous No.46 of 1986 and the order passed in the said Miscellaneous petition. It is further contended that in the month of December 1997, in the presence of elders of Bavikatte village, the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards permanent alimony to the petitioner and she has relinquished her rights after receiving the amount of Rs.80,000/- and is residing in Bavikatte village and she has put up a Tea shop and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner is the daughter of his maternal uncle. She has not even turned for the cremation of his parents. The respondent is a heart patient and also a diabetic and is spending huge amount for treatment; he is staying at Athani in a rented accommodation by paying monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. Since 1990 till this date, - 4 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 the petitioner has not come to respondent’s place to lead marital life. Since 1990, after paying the permanent alimony of Rs.80,000/-, she has not filed any recovery petition and now, a false petition is filed. It is further contended that major children are also to be made as respondents and it is also contended that the petitioner is residing with him for more than 27 years and hence it is the case of desertion. On all these grounds, it was sought to dismiss the petition. 5. To substantiate her case, petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and got marked three documents as Exhibits P1 to P3. On the other hand, respondent got examined himself as RW1 and no documents are marked. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance to Rs.9,700/- per month, in addition to Rs.300/- as awarded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.46 of 1996, in total to Rs.10,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, husband has preferred this revision petition. 6. I have examined the materials placed before me. Smt. Sitavva had filed petition under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of maintenance. Respondent had appeared through his Advocate and filed his - 5 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 objections. After recording the evidence on both sides, the Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount by Rs.9,700/- per month, in addition to Rs.300/-, which was awarded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.46 of 1996. Being aggrieved by this order, the respondent-husband has preferred this revision petition. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent-husband would submit that the order impugned is totally wrong, opposed to natural justice, illegal, arbitrary, and is not according to the facts of the case. He would submit that the Family Court has not appreciated the facts that the petitioner is not having sufficient income to pay the maintenance and he is retired and aged 63 years and suffering from diabetes and is a heart patient. He would submit that the Family Court has not considered that fact that earlier Criminal Miscellaneous No.46 of 1996 has been settled by filing compromise petition. The Family Court has failed to consider that the petitioner has filed the petition after lapse of more than 20 years only to harass the petitioner and this will result in miscarriage of justice. He would further submit that the Family Court has not taken into consideration that the respondent is capable of earning and is leading life for the past - 6 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 27 years without depending on the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Family Court has not taken into consideration that the petitioner has sent legal notice to the respondent to come and join the petitioner. The Family Court has failed to consider that section 125(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure state that no wife shall be entitled to an allowance for maintenance and expenses of proceedings from her husband if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Accordingly, it is sought for to allow the revision petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions, advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-wife has filed maintenance petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.46 of 1996 seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter. The application came to be allowed in part and Rs.300/- per month was awarded as maintenance. After lapse of about 26 years, the petitioner Smt. Sitavva had filed application under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking enhancement of maintenance amount. Absolutely there is no bar to file the petition before the Family Court for enhancement of maintenance - 7 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 125, a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interior maintenance are ordered under the same Section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance or, a person can file application under Section 127 of CRPC for alteration in allowances. Hence, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. The revision petitioner has not made out any ground to reject the application under sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in this regard, also, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The respondent has not placed any materials to show that she has paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the petitioner as permanent alimony. Considering all these aspects, the Family Court has observed in paragraphs 8 to 18 as under: “8. Point No.1: The point which is to be considered is very short. Whether due to efflux of time, the petitioner is entitled for enhancement. 9. Admittedly, in Crl.Misc.No.46/1996, on 09.10.1997 the order was passed by the court by awarding maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to this petitioner and Rs.200/- was - 8 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 awarded to the petitioner No.2, who is now major daughter and married. 10. The respondent has contended that, in the presence of elders, he has settled the matter by giving permanent alimony of Rs.80,000/-. Не deposed the same also. 11. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, same is asked which is denied by this witness. R.W.1 deposed the said fact and in his cross-examination, he admits that, when the said alleged compromise was entered in the presence of elders, the maintenance case was still pending. So, when the maintenance case was pending, he could have entered into compromise in the court itself. Except his oral say there is no documentary evidence. 12. As per his version, he has paid the amount in October 1997. He admits in the cross-examination that, at the time of retirement, he was getting salary of Rs.45,000/- and he has received Rs.14,00,000/-as terminal benefits. 13. The petitioner has produced RTC for R.S.No.102/2B/C standing in the name respondent and others. R.S.No.95/2 of Siddapur village at Ex.P.3 standing in the name of respondent and others. These documents do show that, the respondent is also having landed properties which are capable of earning agriculture income. 14. It is very strange that, the respondent being retired government employee contends that, he is getting Rs.20,000/- per month as pension without producing any pension order, bank pass book or any other documents to - 9 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 that effect and his wife meagerly educated lady allegedly runs tea shop at Bevinamatti village and earns Rs.25,000/- per month as per his version, which prima-facie cannot be believed at all. 15. The respondent admits that, that all the years, he has not made any efforts to issue notice or to take recourse of law to call her back. However, in the cross-examination, he admits that, his second wife Shivakka is no more. He denies that, he is having another wife by name Suvarna and children by name Basappa, Kavita and Prajwal are born to the respondent and said alleged third wife Suvarna. But irrespective of whether the respondent is married or not. The negligence is already proved in Crl. Misc.No.46/1996 and having regard to the recent rate of essential commodities, medicines and cost of living, the petitioner cannot lead her life within paltry sum of Rs.300/- per month. 16. The respondent contends that, he is aged person and he is suffering from heart disease and diabetes. At the same time, it is to be considered that, this petitioner is also aged person, whereas the respondent is having secured income by way of pension. But the petitioner has to expect him to pay maintenance and wait for the maintenance. The respondent conveniently not declared his pension and not produced any bank pass book and suppressed it. 17. Having regard to the present rate of inflation, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. she is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.9,700/- per month from the date of petition during her lifetime. - 10 - RPFC No. 100089 of 2025 18. Accordingly, this point is answered in Affirmative.” 10. I do not find any error or illegality in the order impugned. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Revision petition dismissed; ii) Judgment dated 13th February 2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.83 of 2022 by the Principal Family Court, Bagalkot is confirmed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN CT-CMU