- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100164/2025 C/W REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100024/2025 IN RPFC NO.100164/2025 BETWEEN: SMT. JYOTHI W/O. SHIVAKUMAR SURUPURMATH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, AKKIHONDA, BUSAPETE, AT: POST, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580028. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE.) AND: SHRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O. TARAKESHWARIAH SURUPURMATH, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O. TILAKAWADI, NEAR BHAGYA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HOUSE NO.32, A WING, AT: POST DIST. BELAGAVI-590006. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE.) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENHANCE AND AWARD THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FOR PETITIONER AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING ORDER DATED 26.12.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, IN CRIM.MISC.184/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 IN RPFC NO. 100024 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O. TARAKESHWARIAH SURUPURMATH, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O. TILAKAWADI, NEAR BHAGYA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HOUSE NO.32, A WING, AT: POST DIST. BELAGAVI-580028. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE.) AND: SMT. JYOTHI W/O. SRI SHIVAKUMAR SURUPURMATH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, AKKIHOND, BUSAPETE, AT: POST, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580012. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE.) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT HUBBALLI IN CRL.MISC.NO.184/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels, they are taken up for final disposal. 2. RPFC No.100164/2025 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance amount. Whereas, RPFC No.100024/2025, is filed by the husband seeking to set aside the order passed by the Family Court, Hubballi. 3. Both the petitions are filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 19841, calling in question/modification of the order dated 26.12.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.184/2024 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi2, thereby the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, was partly allowed, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the wife from the date of the petition till her lifetime or till her second marriage whichever is earlier. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act of 1984’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Family Court’ 3 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 4. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, and that their marriage was a love marriage solemnized on 28.12.2020 at Dennison Hotel, Hubballi. Therefore, the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent stands proved as an admitted fact. 5. Thereafter, it is alleged that the marital relationship between the parties became strained, and consequently, the wife completely deserted the husband and started residing separately. It is stated that wife left the matrimonial home and began residing separately along with her parents. The wife filed a petition before the Family Court, Hubballi, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. 6. It is pleaded that the husband is working as an Assistant of a Central Minister and is also running an NGO called All India Institute of Local Self Government, wherein he is working as a Regional Director. It is further pleaded that he is earning Rs.45,000/- per month from the said NGO and, being an assistant to a Central Minister, he has a sufficient source of income. On these grounds, the wife has prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The husband, by filing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 his statement of objections, denied the averments made in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the wife. 7. The Family Court, after receiving oral and documentary evidence from both sides, has partly allowed the petition granting monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- payable by the husband to the wife. 8. The wife has preferred RPFC No.100165/2025 seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, whereas the husband has filed another petition i.e., RPFC No.100024/2025, contending that wife is not entitled to enhancement of maintenance and prays for setting aside the order passed by the Family Court. 9. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. The following points that arise for consideration of the present petitions are: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the wife has made out sufficient grounds for enhancement of maintenance amount, and if so, to what extent? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the husband has made out grounds for interference with the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Hubballi? 11. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the husband is an M.tech degree holder and is working as an Assistant to a Central Minister. It is further submitted that he is also running an NGO called All India Institute of Local Self Government, wherein he is working as a Regional Director and earning Rs.45,000/- per month. Being an assistant to a Central Minister, he has a sufficient source of income. Hence, it is contended that the quantum of maintenance determined by the Family Court is meager one, and therefore, prayed for enhancement of maintenance amount. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the husband submitted that the wife is capable of maintaining herself, as she is working as a teacher in a private school and is well qualified to earn her own income. Therefore, the grant of maintenance to the wife is not justified. Hence, prayed this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 13. Further, learned counsel for the husband submitted that the husband has availed a loan and is paying interest to the institution from which the loan was obtained. Therefore, it was contended that the husband does not have sufficient income to pay maintenance to his wife. 14. However, obtaining a loan for his own purposes and paying interest thereon does not absolve the husband of his obligation to pay maintenance. Whatever loan obtained and interest to be paid by her husband is nothing but artificial deductions, by which, the husband cannot escape liability to pay maintenance. When such loan amount is availed for the personal purposes of the husband, the same cannot be taken into consideration to deny maintenance to the wife. 15. The Family Court, after considering evidence on record, has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- from the date of petition till her lifetime or she solemnizes second marriage, whichever is earlier. 16. Upon considering the reasons assigned by the Family Court and its findings of fact, it is not the contention of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 husband that the appreciated evidence is perverse in nature. The Family Court has appreciated the evidence on record, and from the husband’s own admission, it is proved that he is an M.tech degree holder and is working as an Assistant to a Central Minister. Further, the husband is a Regional Director of an NGO, namely All India Institute of Legal Self Government, and is earning a monthly income of Rs.45,000/- from the said NGO. Though no specific income is reflected from being an Assistant to a Central Minister, but upon consideration of the entire evidence on all its preponderance of probabilities, it is evident that the husband is having sufficient source of income. 17. Furthermore, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent marriage was a love marriage solemnized on 28.12.2020 at Dennison Hotel, Hubballi, by incurring an expenditure of Rs.20,00,000/- to perform the marriage, as admitted by the husband. This clearly indicates that the husband is having sufficient source of income. Based on the evidence on record, the Family Court has observed that the husband is leading a luxurious life. Therefore, no perversity is found in the findings recorded by the Family Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 18. It is the contention of the husband that the wife is working as a part time teacher in a school and, being a qualified person, is capable of securing employment; therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance from the husband. However, merely because the wife is working as a part time teacher does not absolve the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife. Furthermore, employment as a part time teacher does not mean that the wife is earning sufficient income to maintain herself. When the wife has been deserted by the husband, she is compelled to undertake such work to sustain herself and cannot be expected to forego maintenance and subject herself to starvation. Undertaking a part time job for life subsistence does not imply that the wife is able to maintain herself independently so as to disentitle her from claiming maintenance. Therefore, the contention raised by the husband in this regard is devoid of merit. Hence, the Family Court is justified in holding that the wife is entitled to maintenance form the husband. 19. Upon consideration, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is found to be on the lower side. From the evidence adduced before the Family Court, it is proved - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 that the husband is a Regional Director of the NGO as stated above and is earning a monthly income of Rs.45,000/-, as admitted by him. Furthermore, the husband is a postgraduate and is working as an Assistant to a Central Minister, as revealed from the evidence on record. It is also borne out that the respondent solemnized the marriage in a luxurious hotel at Hubballi by spending huge amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. These facts clearly establish that the husband is having sufficient source of income. 20. Therefore, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record on all its preponderance of probabilities, the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as claimed by the wife is just and proper, and the Family Court ought to have awarded maintenance at that rate. Accordingly, the wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the respondent from the date of petition till her lifetime or till she solemnizes second marriage, whichever is earlier. 21. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the ‘affirmative’ and Point No.(ii) in the ‘negative’. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:893 RPFC No. 100164 of 2025 C/W RPFC No. 100024 of 2025 22. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) RPFC No.100164/2025 is allowed. b) RPFC No.100024/2025 is dismissed. c) The order dated 26.12.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.184/2024 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi is modified. d) The wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the respondent from the date of petition till her lifetime or till she solemnizes second marriage, whichever is earlier. e) No order as to cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT-AN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11