- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100070 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SUDHA @ KAVYA W/O. LAKSHMANA D/O. YERRISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO.30, HOSAPETE ROAD, ALLIPURA, TQ.DIST. BALLARI-583104. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. LAKSHMANA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SCULPTOR (IDOL ARTIST), R/O. NEAR HUCHIRAPPA TATA TEMPLE, HAMAPADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAMPLI TALUK, DIST.BALLARI-583129. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-NOTICE SERVED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT., PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI AT BALLARI IN CRL.MISC.NO.67/2023 DATED 06.12.2024 AND TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI AT BALLARI IN CRL.MISC NO.67/2023 DATED 06.12.2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND AWARD THE MAINTENANCE TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.12.09 14:59:44 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. None appears for the respondent despite service of notice. 3. The petitioner had filed the Crl.Misc.No.67/2023 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari seeking monthly maintenance for herself and her two children, who were arrayed as petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The respondent happens to be the husband of petitioner No.1. 4. It was the case of petitioner No.1 that she married the respondent on 31.03.2019 and sufficient emoluments in the form of jewelleries and cash were given to the respondent and huge amount was spent for the marriage by her parents. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 and the respondent have begotten two children, who are petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter their - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 marital relationship was disrupted. It was alleged that the respondent became an alcoholic and neglected the petitioners without giving any basic amenities. It was alleged that the respondent also insisted for additional dowry. It was contended that even there were ill-treatments to petitioner No.1 and ultimately, the petitioner had to approach the police for redressal of her grievances. The petitioner being harassed by the respondent, she left his company and started staying at her parents' house. It was also contended that the efforts by the elders for an amicable settlement was not fruitful and therefore, the couple had to part their ways. 5. It was alleged that the respondent was a sculptor earning ₹10,00,000/- to ₹15,00,000/- per month preparing idols for temples and his family possesses agricultural lands measuring 8 acres and also owns about 4 sites and also coconut grove. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent is capable of paying maintenance of a sum of ₹15,000/- per month to each of the petitioners and as such, the same was sought by them. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 6. The petition was opposed by the respondent by filing a counter contending that petitioner No.1 has deserted him on her own despite he was looking after her in good manner. It was contended that petitioner No.1 during her stay in the matrimonial home was not assisting him and she used to abuse the respondent and his parents in filthy language and neglected them. Even there were public quarrels between them and therefore, it was the first petitioner who refused to stay with the respondent. It is contended that the respondent is suffering from asthma and other ailments and he was admitted to the hospital on many occasions. He contends that he also has to look after the old aged parents who also have health issues. Therefore, he sought for the dismissal of the petition. 7. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari recorded the testimony of the petitioner and the respondent and Exs.P.1 to P.10 and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked in evidence. 8. After hearing the arguments, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that petitioner No.1 has sufficient grounds to be away from the company of the respondent and held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation a sum of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 ₹6,000/- per month to each of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It rejected the claim of petitioner No.1 for maintenance. 9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in revision. 10. The only question that arises in the present revision is whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the claim of petitioner No.1 seeking compensation. 11. The evidence on record is appreciated by the Family Court in detail. The reasoning given by the Family Court in holding that petitioner No.1 has sufficient cause to be away from the company of the respondent cannot be assailed. The Family Court appreciated the evidence in this regard and came to such conclusion, which is not within the scope of the present revision. 12. It is evident that the petitioner as well as the respondent had not filed any affidavit showing their assets and liabilities, as envisaged under the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another1. The Family Court went on to consider the status of the parties, the 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 comparative hardship in which they are living, their ailments, the requirements of the parties in pulling on the life, and their capabilities in earning their livelihood. In paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, the Family Court observes as below: “19. Undisputedly, the petitioner No.1 adduced no documents to prove the immovable properties of respondent and of his family. In the absence of any material documentary evidence in this behalf the assertion of petitioner No.1 that the respondent earns sufficient money from the immovable property of lands and also from the 30 to 40 coconut trees cannot be acted upon. It is the say of 1st petitioner that the respondent being a "Sculptor" earns a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m. on an average. But no iota of evidence is adduced in this behalf by the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the said assertion in the absence of material evidence cannot be acted upon. The documents of medical records adduced by the respondent and marked in 'R' series do reveal that the respondent- husband was treated by the medical authorities for his Renal problems and also for his "Asthama" problem. The said documents being not disproved the same are acted upon so as to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent suffers from health problem and the same cannot be ignored.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 13. After holding so, it opines that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for the maintenance a sum of ₹6,000/- per month. However, it does not give any reason as to why petitioner No.1 is not entitled for any maintenance. Albeit, the proof regarding the income of the respondent was not produced by the petitioners, it was the bounden duty of the respondent to look after his family, including petitioner No.1. Nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1 that she is capable of earning her livelihood by working as a Tailor. Even No documents are available to show that petitioner No.1 is capable of earning her livelihood. 14. On the contrary, there is no material to show that the respondent and his family own about 8 acres of land, except the oral testimony of RW.1. It is pertinent to note that the rejection of the claim of petitioner No.1 for maintenance has not been reasoned by the Trial Court. 15. In view of the above circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to award certain maintenance to petitioner No.1 also. Since petitioner No.1 is able bodied in comparison to the health and other aspects of the respondent, it would be proper to grant maintenance at a sum of ₹3,000/- per month to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17343 RPFC No. 100070 of 2025 her also. To that extent, the impugned order of the Family Court deserves to be intervened. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed in part. ii) The respondent is directed to pay a sum of ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner herein from the date of filing of this petition, in addition to the maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the children of the petitioner. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP Ct:pa LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21