- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100209 OF 2022 (FC) BETWEEN: SMT. REKHA W/O. RAVIKUMAR CHANNASHETTI AGE. 34 YEARS,OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. LAXMANRAO PATIL, AHMAD PLOT, MANTUR ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD-580020 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V. G. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O. ESHWARAPPA CHANNASHETTY, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. EESHWAR NAGAR OPP APMC, HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD-580020. …RESPONDENT THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN M C 282/2019 DATED 27/10/2021 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI BY ALLOWING THE MISCELLANEOUS FRIST APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant and the respondent are married on 24.04.2014 at Veerashaiva Kalyana Mantapa, Navanagara, Hubballi as decided by the elders of both the families, and the marriage is dissolved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2021 in MC No.282/2019 on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi [for short, the ‘Family Court’]. This petition in MC No.282/2019 is by the respondent. This Court has granted interim order on 13.04.2023 staying the operation of the impugned judgment and decree. 2. The respondent remains absent though served, and to ensure that the respondent has got another opportunity, this Court has called upon the jurisdictional Police to deliver intimation of the appeal to the respondent. In compliance, the Police Inspector, Navanagara Police Station, Hubballi has filed a report stating that the respondent is personally delivered with the intimation, and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 the Officer has also filed an acknowledgment in this regard. The respondent still remains unrepresented. As such, Sri. V. G. Bhat, the learned counsel for the appellant is heard for final disposal of the appeal. 3. The appellant and the respondent were estranged immediately after marriage with the appellant initiating proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code [Cr.P.C] for maintenance. The concerned learned Magistrate has granted certain interim maintenance, and with the appellant initiating proceedings for enforcement under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C, the appellant and the respondent have come to terms and resumed their marital life. It is after the resumption in marital life, the appellant is on the family way, and she has given birth to a son on 17.01.2017. 4. However, the appellant and the respondent are again estranged resulting in multiple proceedings inter se, including the present proceedings. If the respondent has sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 asserting that the appellant was insisting and given to a luxurious lifestyle, the appellant has produced some evidence to establish that the respondent had entered into matrimonial life with another lady. The Family Court, on appreciation of the entire evidence [including the evidence rendered by the respondent’s mother] has opined that the appellant has established that the respondent is in relationship with another lady, but the marriage must be dissolved as they will not be able to bury their differences and establish a harmonious life. 5. Sri. V.G. Bhat, the learned for the appellant, is categorical that the appellant would not pursue this appeal for interference with the decision for dissolution of the marriage, but he is on instruction to pursue the appeal for grant of higher permanent alimony. The learned counsel submits that the appellant has the sole responsibility of looking after her son who is only seven years old, that the appellant is residing in a rented house and she is supported only by her family members, that the respondent has not given any amount towards her - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 maintenance or the maintenance of the child over all these years. 6. Sri. V.G. Bhat canvasses that if the appellant’s abject inability and her dependence on her family with complete negligence by the respondent are established, the evidence on record is that the respondent makes a living as a Registered Commission Agent in APMC Yard, Navanagara, Hubballi and he also has a shop in the same place, apart from owning agricultural lands in his native village of Lingadala, Betageri-Hobali, Gadag-District. The learned counsel invites this Court’s attention to the different photographs, the revenue records and the other documents in this regard. 7. The Family Court has granted a sum of ₹5,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent essentially because the respondent has paid all maintenance in one go, but the Family Court has not considered the other circumstances to ascertain the respective status and the responsibilities on the appellant and respondent towards the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 minor son which must be essential factors. The respondent’s better status is undeniably established by the evidence. When queried, Sri.V.G.Bhat is categorical that the respondent has paid no portion of ₹5,00,000/- that is awarded as permanent alimony. 8. If the appellant is saddled with the responsibility of looking after the child who is only seven years without any assistance from the respondent, and the respondent is engaged in business running the shop and also as a Commission Agent [apart from owning certain immovable properties along with his family members as seen in the relevant RTCs], this Court must examine whether ₹5,00,000/- will be adequate as a permanent alimony. This question must be examined in the circumstance stated above and also in the light of the fact that the appellant will have to incur expenditure in future for herself and her son. The grant of alimony must such that she can supplement the resources with the interest that will accrue on the corpus when invested with a Nationalized Bank. On an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 overall consideration of circumstances, and the respondent’s financial status with the assets as aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as permanent alimony. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The appeal is allowed in part. [B] The Family Court’s judgment and award dated 27.10.2021 in MC No.282/2019 is modified granting to the appellant in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as permanent alimony observing that if the respondent does not pay the said amount within eight [8] weeks from today, he will be liable to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2340-DB MFA No. 100209 of 2022 [C] There shall be no costs, and the office is directed to draw decree accordingly. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/CT-VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13