- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100234 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SHRI. FAKEERGOUDA @ PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTIONER, R/O. PLOT NO. 1127, SAHYADRI NAGAR, BELAGAVI- 590019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI F.S. PATIL, PARTY IN PERSON) AND: SMT. NIRMALA W/O FAKEERAGOUDA @ PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO. 72, AKASH PARK, KESHWAPUR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI- 580023, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI U.G. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, IS PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET- ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,HUBBALLI IN CRIM. MISC. NO. 343/2015 ORDER DATED 25.10.2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 1ST FEBRUARY, 2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.11 16:18:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the respondent – husband challenging the order dated 25.10.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.343/2015 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Hubballi1 awarding maintenance to the respondent herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner - wife before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was held on 12.04.2015 at Mahabaleshwar Temple, Belagavi. It is stated in the petition that the parents of the petitioner – wife gave Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenses to the respondent – husband and also Rs.15,000/- towards purchasing household utensils and that apart 3.5 tolas of gold (approximately 35 grams) to the respondent - husband. It is the case of the petitioner – 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 wife that the petitioner had married one Prashant V Uppin and her husband died on 27.01.2007 and thereafter the petitioner married the respondent. 4. It is also case of the petitioner that the respondent married one Smt.Smita, resident of Dharwad and the said marriage was dissolved and thereafter the petitioner married the respondent on 12.04.2015. It is the case of the petitioner – wife that, the respondent – husband was inhumanly beating the petitioner – wife and suspecting the character of the petitioner - wife and also not providing food and medicine to the petitioner – wife and as such the petitioner – wife has left the matrimonial home on 24.09.2015 at the instance of respondent – husband as the respondent driven out the petitioner – wife from the matrimonial home. The petitioner is residing with her parents. 5. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent – husband is an advocate by profession and also working as a lecturer in private law college in Belagavi - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 and that apart the respondent - husband is owning immovable properties to an extent of 27 acres of land and therefore the petitioner – wife has filed Crl.Misc.No.343/2015 seeking maintenance from the respondent - husband. 6. The respondent – husband entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection contending that there was no marriage between the petitioner and himself. It is the case of the respondent – husband that the marriage is not consummated and the petitioner is not a dutiful wife to the respondent – husband and fraud has been committed by the petitioner – wife to contract the marriage with the respondent – husband and as such sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. It is also stated in the statement of objection that the petitioner – wife has studied up to BA degree and having computer knowledge and was working as data entry operator at Hubballi Municipal Corporation prior to 12.04.2015 and accordingly the respondent – husband - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 submitted that as the petitioner – wife has left the matrimonial home without cause and as such sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. The Family Court based on the pleadings on record, formulated points for consideration. In order to establish their case, the petitioner – wife has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 40 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.40. On the other hand, respondent – husband has examined himself as RW.1 and produced 12 documents and same were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.12. 9. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 25.10.2023, allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner - wife. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent – husband has preferred this petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 10. I have heard the petitioner in person and Sri.U.G.Kattimani, learned counsel for the respondent. 11. The petitioner in person argued that, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is illegal and without any legal basis and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that the respondent – husband never neglected the petitioner – wife and the respondent herein left the matrimonial home without any cause and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herein and her parents have manipulated the things to arrange the marriage of the petitioner with respondent and further he argued that the petitioner and the respondent were distant relatives. It is also the submission made by the petitioner herein that, the Family Court without considering the factual aspects on record has passed the impugned order which requires interference of this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 12. In order to buttress his argument, the petitioner in person places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh and Others reported in (2000) AIR (SC) 1165, in the case of Khudiram Das vs. The State of West Bengal and Others reported in (1975) AIR (SC) 550 and in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 and argued that the impugned order passed by the Family Court requires interference of this Court. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent herein sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 14. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing of the parties, I have carefully perused the original records and examined the findings of the Family Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 15. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner – wife and respondent – husband was solemnized on 12.04.2015 as per Exs.P.1 to P.3. Perusal of the records would indicate that the respondent herein is a widow and the petitioner herein is a divorcee. It is the case of the petitioner – wife before the Family Court that the respondent - husband has neglected and was not taking care of the needs of the petitioner - wife and as such she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on 24.09.2015 and settled at her parents house. It is the allegation of petitioner – wife that the respondent – husband is an advocate practicing for more than 15 years and also a lecturer in a private law college. It is also stated that the respondent – husband had immovable properties to an extent of 27 acres at Achamatti village, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi district. It is the grievance of the respondent – husband that petitioner – wife has left the matrimonial home without cause and therefore not entitled for maintenance. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 16. In the backdrop of these aspects, perusal of the records would indicate that the parties are residing separately and in that view of the matter the respondent herein is entitled for maintenance from the petitioner herein. The judgments referred to by the petitioner in person are not applicable to the facts on record except the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh supra, insofar as considering the maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 17. On careful examination of the reasons assigned by the Family Court, though the respondent herein is a bachelor degree holder however, no acceptable document has been produced by the petitioner herein to fortify that the respondent herein is working at Municipal Corporation at Hubballi and having independent income. In that view of the matter taking into account the status of the parties, the Family Court rightly passed the impugned order directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent herein and in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 view of the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh supra, the remedy of maintenance is a measure of social justice to prevent the wife and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy, and applying the said principle to the case on hand, there is no perversity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 18. In view of the judgment of the Hon’be Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and Another vs. Khobbanna reported in AIR 2017 SC 1174, it is held that merely because wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to interfere with the maintenance granted by the Family Court. It is also to be noted that though the petitioner/party in person made numerous allegation against the respondent herein, however, the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding to grant relief to the neglected wife. It is also to be noted that, in terms of the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2633 RPFC No. 100234 of 2023 Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. does not determine the rights of the parties and therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and accordingly the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33