- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10891 RPFC No. 100089 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100089 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SMT. RENUKA W/O. ASHOK DESALLI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. YATTINAHALLI, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI. PIN. 581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. ASHOK S/O. SANGAPPA DESALLI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YATTINAHALLI, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI. PIN. 581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT HAVERI IN CRL.MISC.NO.24/2020 DATED 13.10.2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.30 12:04:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10891 RPFC No. 100089 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA) Heard arguments on both sides. 2. The revision petitioner-wife has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 13th October, 2021 passed in Criminal Misc. No.24 of 2020 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haveri (for short “the trial Court”). 3. By the said order, the trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance. The trial Court has held that the petitioner has proved that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent has not questioned the order passed by the trial Court. Now, the only question would be, “Whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the maintenance petition?” In this regard, it is relevant to mention here as to the reasons assigned by the trial Court. During the course of order, the trial Court has observed as under: “h. The petitioner has claimed maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Admittedly, by the petitioner she is residing at the residence of her parents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10891 RPFC No. 100089 of 2021 As such, she does not require any amount towards accommodation. Further, she is getting pension of Rs.600/- per month. Further, she has admitted in her cross examination that she is getting 14 Kgs of free rice under Anthyodaya Ration Scheme. She has admitted that she is having a son who is working in Post Office. The petitioner has not produced any document as to the income of her son. The petitioner has not stated that her son is not looking after her expenses. Since, her son is earning, it is his duty also to maintain her. The petitioner has not arrayed her son as respondent in this petition. The petitioner has not stated and proved that the income of her son is not sufficient enough for the maintenance of herself and her son which implies that the income of her son is sufficient enough for the maintenance of both and that her son is maintaining her. i. The object of Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is that no person shall be left homeless and shall be left for starvation. In the instant case, the petitioner is not in such a situation for the reason that she is residing at her parental house and her son is maintaining her. Petitioner is handicap from her birth itself. Further she claimed that she led her matrimonial life for period of 7 years from her marriage. Her marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 and she must have led matrimonial life up to 1996. She filed this petition only in the year 2015. There is no explanation on the part of petitioner as to why she kept mum for a period of 19 years. This delay in filing the petition and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10891 RPFC No. 100089 of 2021 she not claiming maintenance from her son implies that the petition has been filed with malafide intention. Hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent. j. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled maintenance as discussed herein for above.” 4. A perusal of the order reveals that both the parties have not filed their affidavit as to their assets and liabilities as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA reported in (2021)2 SCC 324. Even the trial Court has not directed the parties to file their assets and liabilities. Before receiving the assets and liabilities of the parties, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife is not entitled for maintenance from the respondent-husband, which is not correct. Hence, it is just a proper to remand the case to the trial Court to provide an opportunity to both the parties to file their assets and liabilities and thereafter to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Revision petition is allowed in part; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10891 RPFC No. 100089 of 2021 ii) order dated 13th October, 2021 passed in Criminal Misc.No.24 of 2020, by the Principal, Judge, Family Court, Haveri, is set aside; iii) the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to both the parties to file their assets and liabilities as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJNESH (supra); iv) the trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their additional evidence if any, and thereafter, shall proceed with the case in accordance with law; v) both the parties are directed appear before the trial Court on 18th September, 2025, without waiting for notice in this regard; vi) Registry to send the copy of this order along with the trial court records to the concerned court, forthwith. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4