- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 31 OF 2014 BETWEEN: MS. CAROLINE ALWYN D/O LATE MR.NOEL GEORGE ALWYN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NO.928, E/F BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, AGNIHAMSA ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE-570 023 …PETITIONER (BY MS.PRIYA KALE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIKARA P.K., ADVOCATE) AND: MR.MARTIN NOBERT ANTHONY S/O LATE MR M.S.ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.201, CARPET ROAD S E D 4, LACEY WASHINGTON-9803 UNITED STATE OF AMERICA ALSO AT NO.70, C BLOCK 21ST CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE MYSORE …RESPONDENT (V/O/D 06.02.2024- NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RPFC FILED U/SEC.19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984, AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED:18.01.2014 PASSED IN C.MISC.75/2012 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, PRL. FAMILY COURT, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.125 CR.P.C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in C.Misc.No.75/2012 dated 18.01.2014 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the wife is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The wife had filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the husband. It is the case of the wife that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 17.04.2010 and the husband by practicing fraud on the wife regarding his occupation, age and concealing the fact of his earlier marriage has got married and revealed that he had an interest in the property of the wife. Subsequently, she got the information that the husband was a divorcee and this fact was concealed by the husband and by concealing he has obtained the consent of the wife for marriage. It is also stated that after the marriage, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 the brother of the husband on behalf of the husband demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and thereafter husband received the same. Subsequently, the wife joined the company of the husband in USA wherein she was not provided with basic needs. There was absolutely no facility to lead a family life and the husband did not provide groceries and other essential things to cook the food. The husband ill-treated the wife and used to refer abusive and unparliamentary words towards the wife. Further, the husband had also developed relationship with his divorced wife and they used to exchange messages. It is stated that the husband has neglected to maintain the wife and prior to the marriage, she was well placed and she has resigned the job. The husband was drawing a salary of $4,000 US Dollars and looking at the income of the husband and needs of the wife, she is entitled for monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in Indian currency. 4. The husband remained ex-parte before the Family Court and the Court had passed an order dismissing the petition of the wife. The Family Court had discussed the scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., that if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 to maintain herself, the maintenance can be awarded looking at the status of the parties and needs of the parties. But in the petition, the wife nowhere has asserted that she is unable to maintain herself and the material pleading is missing. The wife in her evidence also has simply stated that husband is duty bound to maintain the wife and has willfully neglected and refused to take care of her and now she is under the mercy of her mother. But absolutely no evidence was placed by her to show that she is unable to maintain herself. Admittedly, she is M.B.A. Graduate and earlier she was holding prominent placements. Now there is no hurdle for her to get fresh placements looking at her qualification and she could definitely get any placements. But it is evident that she has not made any attempts and she has not pleaded and proved that she is unable to maintain herself. Under those circumstances, the Court was not inclined to go into the aspect of the income of the husband and other things and dismissed the petition filed by the wife. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that even if the wife is having sufficient income, it is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 the duty of the husband to maintain the wife. Further, it is submitted that the Family Court ought to have considered the fact that as on the date the application is filed, the wife is not in a position to maintain herself and she is depending upon her parents, on that ground, the Court ought to have granted maintenance. The Court cannot look at the capability of earning but the Court has to look at the status of the wife as on the date and her basic needs at that point of time needs to be taken care of. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others Vs. Anil Kuchwaha1 in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 which reads as follows: "7. Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. 1 2014 (16) SCC 715 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance." 6. Learned counsel had also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai2 in paragraph Nos.6 to 8 which reads as follows: "6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503). 2 2008 (2) SCC 316 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 7. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It is has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself. 8. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C." 7. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court had failed to consider the scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the wife is entitled for maintenance. Learned counsel also submits that in the year 2014, the petition that is filed by her under the Special Marriage Act - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 seeking to declare the marriage as nullity came to be decreed and in that also, her case for maintenance was rejected and as this application is pending, she had not questioned the said proceedings. 8. Notice to the respondent is held sufficient by order dated 06.02.2024. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The petition is filed in the year 2012. Along with that, M.C. was also filed. M.C. was allowed declaring the marriage as nullity. In that also, the wife had filed an application seeking maintenance which came to be dismissed. This Court is not able to appreciate the submission that the wife is depending upon her parents and she is not able to maintain herself, when it is her own case that she is MBA Graduate and earlier, before the marriage, she was holding good position and admittedly, there are no children in the wedlock. Even after obtaining divorce in the year 2014, till now, what are the efforts made by the wife to secure the job is not known. The Family Court had rightly observed that with the said qualification and with the earlier experience, why the wife - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29130 RPFC No. 31 of 2014 is not working is unknown. All the judgments that are relied on by the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. No material is placed before the Court as to how the wife is able to live right from the year 2012 to 2025. Even till 2025, according to the petitioner she has no job and she is not able to maintain herself. None of these submissions merits the consideration before this Court and the Family Court had rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2