- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28785 RPFC No. 212 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 212 OF 2017 BETWEEN: DR. STANLEY THOMAS, S/O. SRI.THOMAS VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.303, THRIBHUVANA ENCLAVE, 44, MUNIGA LAYOUT, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 033. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESHA N., ADVCOATE) AND: SMT. LEENA JOHN STANLEY, W/O DR.STANLEY THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.401-402, SHELTER APARTMENTS, NO.15, PALM GROOVE ROAD, VICTORIA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 047. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N. SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT,1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.11.2017 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.480/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28785 RPFC No. 212 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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.480/2014 dated 07.11.2017 by the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition till her lifetime or till her remarriage whichever is earlier and also granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.7,500/- each to both the daughters. Further, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the educational expenses of the daughters commencing from next academic year 2018-19 till completion of their education. Further, one time litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.25,000/-, the husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband submits that earlier, the wife had filed Crl.Misc.No.19/2011 under Domestic Violence Act. In that, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28785 RPFC No. 212 of 2017 settlement was arrived between the parties on 19.04.2011. As per the same, the husband had agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the welfare of his minor children and he owns an apartment in Bengaluru and he gifted the same to his minor daughters. In view of the said settlement, as the disputes between the parties have attained finality, the wife cannot file an application under Section 125 CrPC. and the same is barred by Res Judicata. This aspect was not considered by the Family Court. Learned counsel further submits that when the wife is seeking maintenance to the children also the children should have been parties to the petition and they were not made as parties and mother is the only party to the proceedings. In such case, she cannot seek maintenance to the children and this aspect was also not considered by the Family Court. It is submitted that the father has not seen the children and he is only made to pay the maintenance, but the wife has not given any visitation to the father. It is further submitted that all these aspects were not considered by the Family Court as such the petition needs to be allowed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28785 RPFC No. 212 of 2017 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife does not deny the fact that the husband is paying maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month as per the order passed by the Family Court in the Domestic Violence proceedings and also he does not dispute the fact that as per the agreement the flat is transferred in the name of the children. It is his submission that the said flat was sold on 09.11.2023 as the wife was not in a position to bear the educational expenses of the children, she had to sell the house and pay the amounts towards the educational expenses of the twin daughters. It is submitted that the wife is not in a position to take care of herself and it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and the children as the maintenance amount paid i.e., Rs.15,000/- per month was not sufficient, they have come up with this application seeking maintenance. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The Family Court on the issue of Res Judicata had rightly dealt with the petition. When the reliefs that are sought under the Domestic Violence Act, the Act itself makes it very clear that in the domestic violence case the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28785 RPFC No. 212 of 2017 relief that are granted are in addition to the other reliefs that a party is entitled. When under the said Act, they have entered into a compromise the submission of the learned counsel that under Section 125 of CrPC., they cannot make any application has no legs to stand. The Family Court had rightly held that it would not amount to Res Judicata. Then coming to Section 125 of CrPC. proceedings, the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as educational expenses. As far as those educational expenses are concerned, already when father has given a flat for the children they were enjoying it till the year 2023. In the year 2023, they sold the property and they have paid the educational expenses. Now, they have become major as such the husband need not to pay any educational expenses to the children. Then coming to the maintenance, the children are already majors and as per the settlement, the husband is already paying maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, for the wife another amount of Rs.15,000/- would serve the purpose and she would be able to take care the father. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28785 RPFC No. 212 of 2017 ORDER i. The impugned order passed in Crl.Misc. No.480/2014 dated 07.11.2017 by the III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru with regard to the maintenance that is granted to the wife is affirmed and the maintenance that is granted to the children and the educational expenses are set aside. ii. Accordingly, the RPFC is partly allowed. iii. All I.As., in the RPFC petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25