- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100106 OF 2024 (-) C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100083 OF 2024 IN RPFC NO.100106/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI. IMRAN S/O. RIYAZAHMED BUTLAR, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.88, KRISHNAMMMA GARDEN, 3RD CROSS, J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NUSRATSHAH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRINIVAS NADAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SAMEENA W/O. IMRAN BUTLAR, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. IBRAHIM BAGWAN, PLOT NO.320, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590019. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDHESH G. KULKARNI & SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI ADVOCATES) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY AWARDING A MAINTENANCE OF RS.10,000/- PER MONTH TO THE RESPONDENT BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.03.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.258/2019 IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.01 11:43:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 IN RPFC NO.100083/2024 BETWEEN: SMT. SAMEENA W/O. IMRAN BUTLAR AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. IBRAHIM BAGWAN, PLOT NO.320, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI. PIN CODE - 590019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. IMRAN S/O. RAIYAZAHMAD BUTLAR AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO. 88 KRISHNAMMA GARDEN , 3RD CROSS, J. C. NAGAR, BENGALURU PIN CODE - 560046. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NUSRATSHAH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRINIVAS NADAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.03.2024 CRIMINAL MIS.NO.258/2019 BY THE LEARNED BE THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND IT MAY KINDLY BE ENHANCED TO 2,00,000/- BY ALLOWING REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Nusrat Shah on behalf of Sri.Srinivas Nadamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100106/2024 and learned counsel Sri. Siddesh G Kulkarni and Sri. Deepak S Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100083/2024. 2. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. Challenging the order dated 25.03.2024 in Crl.Misc.258/2019 passed by the I-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short “the Family Court”), the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 filed RPFC No.100106/2024 seeking modification of the impugned order and the petitioner-wife in Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 filed RPFC No.100083/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court. 4. The relevant facts for adjudication of these petitions are that the petitioner-wife has filed Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 before the Family Court stating that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2015 at Bengaluru. It is also stated in the claim petition that no children were born in their wedlock. It is also stated in the claim petition that the respondent-husband neglected the petitioner-wife and has not provided the basic needs to the petitioner. It is also alleged in the petition that because of unfitness of the respondent- husband, she did not become pregnant and as such, without tolerating the inhuman treatment in the matrimonial home, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. Hence, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 on the file of the Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. 4.1. On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition except admitting the relationship with the petitioner as his wife. It is also stated in the statement of objection that the petitioner was not living as a dutiful wife in the matrimonial home and she was quarreling with him as well as his family members and therefore, prayed to dismissal of the claim petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 4.2. In order to establish their case, the petitioner has examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and produced 11 documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondent himself was examined as RW1 and produced 9 documents and same were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R9. 4.3. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 25.03.2024 allowed the claim petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay the monthly maintenance of ₹45,000/- to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed RPFC No.100106/2024 challenging the maintenance granted by the Family Court and on the other hand, the petitioner-wife has filed RPFC No.100083/2024 seeking enhancement of the maintenance. 5. Sri. Nusrat Shah, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri. Sri.Srinivas Nadamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100106/2024 submits that the finding recorded by the Family Court to quantify the maintenance of ₹45,000/- per month is on the higher side and the said finding is without considering the material on record - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 despite the fact that the respondent-husband is not doing business as mentioned in the assets and liabilities produced before the Family Court and also he argued that the petitioner- wife being a graduate in commerce is equivalently qualified to earn for herself and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. He also submitted that the respondent-husband has questioned the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court on 17.01.2022 in W.P.No.101175/2022 and this Court, after hearing both the parties, disposed of the petition on 03.11.2023 and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹12,000/- and therefore, this aspect has not been considered by the Family Court while passing the impugned order and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife opposed the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband and further contended that the Family Court without considering the status of the respondent-husband has fixed the monthly maintenance of ₹45,000/- which requires to be enhanced by this Court. Accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 7. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question that is to be answered in these petitions is whether the quantification of the maintenance of ₹45,000/- by the Family Court requires interference in these petitions. It is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as the petitioner has married the respondent on 20.02.2015 but they have no issues. It is also to be noted here by looking into the finding recorded by the Family Court that the parties are residing separately on account of rift in the family life. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner-wife is entitled for maintenance from the respondent-husband as she has stated in her claim petition that she has no source of income and residing with her parents. 8. Nextly, insofar as consideration of maintenance to be granted to the petitioner-wife is concerned, I have carefully perused the Family Court records wherein the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent-husband reveals that he is the only son to his parents and has purchased a property at brigade gardens bearing Unit No.37/38 ground floor, located at No.19, Church Street, Bengaluru and the said - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 property stands in the name of himself and his father. It is also forthcoming from the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent-husband that, the respondent-husband along with his father has purchased Apartment No.1-A, Corporation No.102/2,Tawakkal Regency, St.Johns Church Road, Bengaluru. That apart, he has also purchased apartment at Unit No.L1-0, Ground Floor, Splendid Plaza, HRBR Layout, II Block, Banaswadi, Bengaluru along which his father. By looking into the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent- husband it is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that the respondent-husband admits in his evidence with regard to confronting Ex.P11 that the Income Tax Returns for the year 2020-21 is shown as ₹9,71,730/- and drastically it is shown as ₹1,65,000/- in the year 2021-2022. It is also forthcoming from the records that the respondent- husband had a business in the name “Exhume India Trading Company”. However, in the said business, the GST register number was cancelled on 18.03.2021 during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court. It is also forthcoming from I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the petitioner in RPFC No.100106/2024 that he has a business of ‘Coffee and Spices Enterprises’ as per - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 the GST returns form filed and these aspects make it clear that the respondent-husband has an individual business and also having capability of paying maintenance of ₹45,000/- to the petitioner-wife. Insofar as RPFC No.100083/2024 filed by the petitioner-wife is concerned, taking into account that the petitioner is residing at Belagavi along with her parents, the grant of maintenance made by the Family Court is just and proper. The Family Court has considered the entire material on record and affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent-husband for quantification of maintenance in accordance with law. 9. Taking into account the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and others1, it is needless to say that the purpose of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is to provide minimum relief to the applicant/wife for her livelihood and the said fact is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others2. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband argued that the 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 2 2015 (6) SCC 353 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 RPFC No. 100106 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 100083 of 2024 petitioner-wife is a B.Com., graduate, however, merely because the wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance granted by the Family Court as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja v. Khobbanna3 and therefore, I do not find any merit in both the petitions, accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN Ct:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 3 AIR 2017 SC 1174