- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5270 OF 2011 BETWEEN: SMT. SARASWATHI W/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUNIRABAD, NOW RESIDING AT: ITTANGUR, C/O. PAMAPANNA S/O. MUNIVENAKATAPPA, ITTANGUR VILLAGE, SARJAPUR OBALI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL, DIST. BENGALURU-581110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVANAND B. BEDASUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: RAMACHANDRA S/O. KEMPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR CHURCH, MUNIRABAD, (R.S.), TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-580008. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT –NOTICE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 03.09.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOPPAL IN R.A.NO.15/2010 ON HIS FILE, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, IN R.A.NO.15/2010 IN FULL AWARDING MAINTENANCE OF RS. 3,000/- PER MONTH WITH COSTS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.11.12 10:43:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. None appears for the respondent. 3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.76/2008 and appellant in R.A.No.15/2010 decided by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Koppal and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Koppal respectively. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit seeking maintenance from the respondent who is her husband. It was contended that she married the respondent on 15.03.1992 and thereafter, they have got three children out of their wedlock. The grievance of the appellant is that the defendant ousted her from the matrimonial house without any reason and he is living with a kept mistress by name Puttamma. It is contended that the respondent has several landed properties and earns income of more than ₹2,00,000/- per year and also owns four houses, commercial complex etc. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 Therefore, she claimed a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month from the respondent. 4. The suit was resisted by the respondent by filing written statement. It is contended that the allegations made by the appellant are false and frivolous. He denied his living with a kept mistress. It is contended that he had to sell one of the property to meet the expenses of marriage of his daughter and also for education of the children. Additionally, he contended that the plaintiff is living in extra marital relationship with one Allabakash and therefore, there is no desertion by the respondent. Thus, he sought for absolving his liability to pay any maintenance. The Trial Court framed following issues: “ISSUES i) Whether the plaintiff proves defendant has deserted her without lawful excuse and he is living with kept mistress in the same house? ii) Whether the defendant proves plaintiff is unchaste woman? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance? If so at what rate? iv) What order or decree?” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 5. The appellant/plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to 6 were marked and one witness was examined as PW.2. The respondent was examined as DW.1 and Ex.D.1 was marked. One witness was marked on his behalf as DW.2. 6. After hearing both the sides, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant has not deserted the plaintiff without lawful excuse and therefore, by answering issue No.1 in the negative, it dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 25.01.2010. 7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.15/2010 and the First Appellate Court after hearing both the sides, held that the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of suit and created charge over the properties standing in the name of the defendant. 8. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court contending that the maintenance awarded by the First Appellate Court is meager and there was no reason to award Rs.1,000/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 per month. This Court by Order dated 18.02.2014, framed following substantial question of law: “Whether the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed a serious error in ignoring the material evidence and thereby the quantum of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- awarded is too inadequate?” 9. It is pertinent to note that the question of desertion has attained finality and it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the same. The respondent is shown to have possessing the following immovable properties as may be found from the plaint. A) The land Sy.No.151, measuring 01 acre 25 guntas, situated at Hosahalli village, in Koppal taluka. B) The land Sy.No.158, measuring 01 acre 26 guntas situated at Hosahalli village. C) The land Sy.No.162/A, measuring 33 guntas situated at Hosahalli village. D) House bearing No.699, situated at Munirabad village in Koppal taluka. E) House bearing No.353, situated at Munirabad village. F) House bearing No.1494, situated at Munirabad village. G) House bearing No.1495, situate at Munirabad village. 10. In support of the same, the Exs.P1 to P6 are produced. These records pertained to item No.‘A’ to ‘C’ and ‘E’ to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 ‘G’ properties. These records also show that the lands are irrigated lands and therefore, it can safely be said that they are fetching sufficient income to the defendant. 11. A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court would show that no detailed reasons are forthcoming as to why the claim of Rs.3,000/- per month should not have been given to the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that except paragraph No.26 of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court there is nothing else which show any reason as to why the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month has been granted. The present appeal arises out of a decree passed in the year 2010. Fifteen years have passed after the impugned decree. Therefore, on the basis of the present cost of living, it is a fit case where the quantum of maintenance has to be enhanced. The provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as below: “18. Maintenance of wife.―(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 her claim to maintenance― (a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her; (b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) 1[***] (d) if he has any other wife living; (e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; (g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately. (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.” 12. Similarly, the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 also provide for awarding maintenance to the wife which reads as below: “25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.— (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall 1[* * *] pay to the applicant for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant 2[the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. (2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just. (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, 3[it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].” 13. Taking note of these aspects, the maintenance has to be in consonance with the living conditions of both the parties, their income and the quantum of the amount that may be necessary for maintaining a person. In the case on hand, the appellant is the wife and she has admitted in her testimony that the respondent is taking care of the children. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the award of maintenance - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 of Rs.1,000/- per month by the First Appellate Court was on the lower side even if we consider the year when it was sought for. 14. In the year 2010, the appellant had sought for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. In the considered view of this Court, the present requirements of a person and the price rise would have to be considered. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of CPC have to be invoked in moulding the relief and therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. This assessment is made on the basis of the properties which are held by the respondent. 15. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is answered in the ‘affirmative’ and the following order is passed. ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is modified. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15295 RSA No. 5270 of 2011 iii. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of this judgment until further orders or till the lifetime of the appellant. iv. There shall be a charge over the suit schedule properties of the respondent in this regard. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP: Para 1 to 6 RKM: Para 7 to end CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30