Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 83410 (KAR)

SRI RAJESH @ RAJU v. SMT B K SHYAMALA @ RUKMINI

RPFC/16/2023 · 2025-08-06

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30753 RPFC No. 16 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 16 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI RAJESH @ RAJU S/O MANJUNATHA NOW AGED 38 YEARS AGRICULTURIST NO.64/33, 16-D CROSS J.C.NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-86. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT B.K.SHYAMALA @ RUKMINI W/O RAJESH @ RAJU AGED 30 YEARS 2. KUMAR THUSHITH R., S/O RAJESH @ RAJU AGED 5 YEARS 2ND RESPONDENT MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT B.K.SHYAMALA BOTH ARE R/O KONEHOSUR VILLAGE KUMSI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 429 …RESPONDENTS (V/O/D: 18/07/2025- NOTICE TO R1- IS DEEMED TO BE SERVED) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2022 PASSED IN Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30753 RPFC No. 16 of 2023 CRL.MISC.117/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. 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.117/2019 dated 13.09.2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, whereby the Family Court had granted monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/- each per month to the wife and child i.e., an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, the petitioner/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 the wife had deserted the husband and the husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights which came to be allowed and the wife had not joined the husband. Thereafter, he had filed petition seeking divorce and then the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30753 RPFC No. 16 of 2023 divorce was granted. Thereafter, the wife had filed Crl.Misc.No.117/2019 seeking maintenance. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the maintenance as far as the child is concerned, but the wife is not entitled for maintenance as she has failed to seek maintenance in the M.C. proceedings. It is submitted that as the wife had deserted the husband, she is not entitled for maintenance. 4. By order dated 18.07.2025, notice to respondents is held to be deemed service of notice. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. This Court is not able to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights is allowed and the divorce is granted, the wife cannot maintain an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the light of the settled law, even if the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights is allowed and divorce is granted, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the status of a divorced wife, the factor with regard to desertion will not come in the way of the wife seeking maintenance. Just because she - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30753 RPFC No. 16 of 2023 has not sought for maintenance in the M.C. proceedings, it will not preclude her from filing an application seeking maintenance. On these two counts, the application that is filed by the wife is maintainable. 6. Coming to the quantum of maintenance that is granted by the Family Court, the Family Court had granted only an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife and the child, which is a very meager amount and even if the husband is working as a coolie and if the minimum wages are taken into consideration, the maintenance that is granted by the Family Court is meager amount and this Court is not inclined to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43