- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 117 OF 2024 C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 259 OF 2023 IN RPFC No. 117/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANUSHA RAO, W/O NAGESH H S AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. DIVIJA BHARADWAJ D/O NAGESH H S AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 3. DYUTHI BHARADWAJ D/O NAGESH H S AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT ANUSHA RAO-1ST PETITIONER ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO 402, 7TH MAIN RAILWAY LAYOUT, BHOGADI, MYSURU 570026 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 AND: 1. SRI. NAGESH H S S/O SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KARNATAKA BANK ROAD, RUDRAPATTANA, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573102 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MAYE GOWDA B.V FOR SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA K A., ADVOCATE) RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.637/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. IN RPFC NO. 259/2023 BETWEEN: 1. NAGESHA H S S/O SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KARNATAKA BANK ROAD, RUDRAPATTANA, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573150 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.MAYE GOWDA B.V FOR SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 AND: 1. ANUSHA RAO W/O NAGESHA H S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. DIVIJA BHARADWAJ D/O NAGESHA H S AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 3. DYUTHI BHARADWAJ D/O NAGESHA H S AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS SINCE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT ANUSHA RAO W/O NAGESHA H S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO 402, 7TH MAIN RAILWAY LAYOUT, BHOGADI, MYSURU 570026 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2023 PASSED IN CRI.MISC.NO.637/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL, FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc. No.637/2022 dated 30.09.2023 whereby the court had granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- each to both the children and an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the litigation expenses, both the wife and husband are before this court. 2. The wife has filed RPFC No.117/2024 seeking enhancement of the maintenance and the husband has filed RPFC No.259/2023 questioning the order of maintenance. 3. It is the case of the wife that she is a TV Anchor. But regularly she is not having the work. She is getting Rs.15,000/- income. Her mother has gifted a house and she is residing in that house. The husband is doing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 business and he is having good income. But he failed to maintain the wife and children. 4. It is the case of the husband that he has taken loan of an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- for doing business during the COVID time and he has sustained huge losses. Now, he is not even in a position to pay the EMI. He has to take care of his parents. As stated by the wife that he is doing business and having huge income is without any basis. 5. The court by order impugned had granted the maintenance considering the contentions and while granting the maintenance, the court observed that the respondent has contended that he has suffered loss in business and he is facing financial crisis and requires to repay the loan and also he is searching for a job. The fact that the respondent was running business is an admitted fact. The husband has admitted during cross examination that he owns two motorcycles, one purchased in 2022 and a goods vehicle and a car. This being the fact, the husband - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 requires to prove that he lost business. But the husband has not produced any evidence to prove that he lost business and hence the court came to the conclusion that he has financial capacity and he can pay the maintenance and granted the same. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that when the husband is doing business and having sufficient income, the Court ought to have granted the maintenance as sought i.e. Rs.45,000/- per month. With the maintenance that is granted, it is difficult for the wife to take care of herself and the children. All these aspects were not properly considered by the court. As such, the petition needs to be allowed by enhancing the maintenance. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- husband submits that the court without considering the facts that the husband has sustained losses and he is not in a position to pay the amount and basing on the fact that a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 car and a goods vehicle were purchased by the husband, the Court without any basis has granted the amount. It is submitted that the husband has no financial capacity to pay the amount. 8. Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The wife has come to the Court seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.45,000/- as the husband is doing the business. Except the self-serving statement no evidence is placed on record. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in AIR 2021 SC 569, both the parties are supposed to file their statement of assets and liabilities and what all documents that have to be filed in support of their statement of assets and liabilities are clearly enumerated in the judgment. Once if all those documents are placed before the court, as per the judgment, the facts would be crystal clear and basing on that the court would pass orders. After the judgment of the Apex Court, there is nothing much left for the Court to do the guess work. In - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 this case, except looking at the vehicle that is purchased in 2022, the court has not given any finding with regard to the financial capacity of the husband. When once the financial capacity of the husband is not known, this Court cannot pass any order granting a particular amount or enhancing a particular amount as maintenance. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matters needs to be remanded back to the Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order dated 30.09.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.637/2022 by the III Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru is set aside and the petitions are remanded back to the Family Court. ii. Both the parties shall file their fresh statement of assets and liabilities before the Court and the Court shall consider - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30312 RPFC No. 117 of 2024 C/W RPFC No. 259 of 2023 this application provided they file the same in terms of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in AIR 2021 SC 569. iii. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, if necessary. iv. Till the application is decided, the husband shall continue to pay the very same amount of Rs.18,000/-. v. All IAs., in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ