- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9824 RPFC No. 100230 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100230 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHRI THIMMANNA S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS LECTURER AT SPSR PU COLLEGE, RAMPURA, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, R/O. OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT BUS STAND, RAMPURA, TQ. MOLAKALMURU, DIST. CHITRADURGA-577540 …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE.) AND: SMT. RADHA B. W/O. THIMMANNA, D/O. VENKATESH AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. WARD NO.20, GOLLA NARASAPPA COLONY, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, S.N.PET, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENT (SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT.) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.07.2024, PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BALLARI, IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.427/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.14 12:41:53 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9824 RPFC No. 100230 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondent’s counsel has refused to receive summons. In this regard the petitioner Sri Thimmanna S/o. late Anjinappa has filed affidavit on 10.07.2025. Therefore, service of notice to respondent is held as sufficient. The name of respondent is called out. She remained absent and unrepresented. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated 30.07.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, in Crl.Misc.No.427/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgment and order of the trial Court is unsustainable. The approach of the trial Court is erroneous, contrary to law, evidence and material documents available on record. The trial Court passed the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9824 RPFC No. 100230 of 2024 order without giving opportunity to the petitioner for filing his objections and to lead his evidence. Hence, passing the exparte order in violation of principles of natural justice and order passed by this Court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent without examining the parties and without oral and documentary evidence is unsustainable. The respondent has not filed the affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The trial Court without considering this has wrongly passed the order granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. In paragraph No.11 of the judgment the trial Court has observed that respondent has not produced the salary proof of the petitioner. Hence, the trial Court contrary to this finding has passed the order of maintenance on higher side. Hence the petitioner is not in a position to pay exorbitant amount of maintenance as the same is on higher side. On all these grounds the petitioner has sought for allowing this petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9824 RPFC No. 100230 of 2024 4. I have perused the impugned order. The impugned order reveals that Smt.Radha B. W/o. Thimmanna has filed petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- and for cost and such other reliefs. In paragraph No.4 of the order the trial Court has observed that the matter was referred to mediation and as the lis was not settled before the mediation centre, the respondent was called upon to file his statement of objections. He did not file his objections. Thereafter the trial Court has examined the petitioner as PW.4 and four documents placed before the Court as marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has observed in paragraphs No.8 to 11 as under: 8. Point Nos.1 & 2: The contents of Ex.P.1 the Wedding Invitation do say that the parties hereto being Hindus, their marriage was solemnized on 20.06.2019 at Lakshmi Venkateshwara Temple of S.N.Pet, Ballari. The said contents of Ex.P.1 do gain support from the Marriage Photos at Ex.P.2. The contents of receipt issued by the Authority of the said Temple marked at Ex.P.4 do also support the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9824 RPFC No. 100230 of 2024 contents of Ex.P.1. The aforementioned documents being not disproved in the course of trial, the same in turn prima-facie establish the marital relationship of parties hereto. 9. The petitioner in her affidavit filed in lieu of her chief-examination does repeat the petition averments. The said averments being not challenged and being not disproved the same deserves to be accepted. 10. It is also pertinent to mention herein that in the course of proceedings of the case on hand, this Court by Order dated 24.07.2023 passed an Order of Interim Maintenance and thereby called upon the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of petition. That pursuant to the said order, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-. While paying so he did not dispute his marriage with the petitioner. The said act of making spot payment towards interim maintenance by the respondent does corroborate the petition averments and also the averments of affidavit filed in lieu of chief- examination. 11. Thus it is proved and established that the respondent has made the petitioner to live separately by not accepting the petitioner at her matrimonial home and thereby he neglected and deserted the petitioner. It is also proved and established that the respondent works as a Lecturer for Pre University Government College situate at Rampura. But for the reasons best known to the petitioner she has not adduced the Salary Proof of respondent. Therefore this court is of the view that the respondent deserves to be called upon to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9824 RPFC No. 100230 of 2024 monthly maintenance to the petitioner form the date of petition. However the respondent is entitle for set off for having paid the part of interim maintenance. With these observations this Court answers Point No.1 Partly in the affirmative. and passes the following; ORDER That for the aforementioned reasons, the petition preferred U/S.125 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with a direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to the petitioner from the date of petition. The Respondent shall entitle for the set off for having paid the interim maintenance in part. The respondent shall also pay another sum of Rs.7,500/- to the petitioner towards the cost of present Litigation. 5. On perusal of this impugned order, I do not find any illegalities/infirmities in this order. Though the trial Court has provided sufficient opportunity, the respondent has not filed objection to the petition. Even before this Court also the respondent has not disputed the relationship between the petitioner and respondent and he has not produced the salary slip before the Court to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9824 RPFC No. 100230 of 2024 ascertain the income of the revision petitioner/husband who is respondent before the trial Court. 6. Per contra, in the cause title itself the petitioner has admitted that he is working as a Lecturer at SPSR PU College, Rampura in Molakalmuru taluk. Considering the profession and position of both the parties, the financial status of both the parties, the trial Court has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law and facts awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-, which is just and reasonable. Hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is dismissed. ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MRK/ CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14