- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100099 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRI MANOHAR @ PRASHANT S/O. ISHWAR TALWAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.23, ADARSH COLONY, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VEENA SRIKANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE.) AND: SMT. ANITA W/O. MANOHAR @ PRASHANT TALWAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.593, BLOCK NO.4, SECTOR NO.5, SHREE NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHREEVATSA HEGDE AND SRI ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADVOCATES.) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.151/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 125 CR.P.C, AND ALTERNATIVELY, MODIFY THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT AND/OR DIRECT PAYMENT FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER INSTEAD OF THE DATE OF PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the Revision Petition is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Revision Petition is filed by the husband questioning the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. No.151/2018 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi1, thereby, the Family Court has allowed the petition Crl. Misc.No.151/2018 in part by assessing maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month payable by the respondent (petitioner herein) to his wife from the date of filing of the petition. 3. It is not disputed that the revision petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife respectively, as their marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2017 at Belagavi. It is the allegation of the respondent/wife that she was 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 subjected to harassment by her parents-in-law and the revision petitioner. It is her further allegation that the revision petitioner has deserted and neglected the respondent/wife; therefore, she was constrained to live in her parental home, and lodged a complaint against parents- in-law and revision petitioner/husband. Hence, the respondent/wife filed petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. 4. The said petition is vehemently refuted by the revision petitioner/husband. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, has granted maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of filing of the petition. 5. Questioning the same, the revision petitioner/husband filed this present revision petition. 2 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submitted that he is not having any regular income, and moreover, the respondent/wife is working and receiving salary. Further, the revision petitioner/husband and his parents have not subjected the respondent/wife to harassment, but the respondent/wife had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home; hence, the revision petitioner/husband is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife. Also, submitted that the revision petitioner/husband is not having any regular income and therefore, prays to make interference with the order passed by the Family Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife justified the order passed by the Family Court. 8. Considering the materials placed on record, it is not disputed that the revision petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, as their marriage was solemnized on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 19.04.2017 at Belagavi. Hence, it is proved that the respondent is wife of the revision petitioner. When this being the fact, it is bounden duty of the revision petitioner/husband to maintain his wife. It is an attempt made by the revision petitioner/husband that the respondent/wife is working in the institution. 9. Upon considering the evidence of CW-1 and perusing the documentary evidence marked at Exs.C-1 to C-3, it is proved that though the respondent/wife was working in the institution, she was working in the said firm till March 2019 and the said Ex.C-3 certificate proved the fact that the respondent/wife left the job in April-2019. Therefore, there is no evidence on the part of the revision petitioner/husband that the respondent/wife is working and is self-reliant. From the evidence on record, it is revealed that he is working as instructor in the motor driving school. The Family Court after assessing the evidence on record observed that the said motor driving school is being run by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 her brother and it is stated that the revision petitioner/husband is working as an instructor in the motor driving school. Therefore, it is proved that the revision petitioner/husband is working in the driving school and for every person admitted to the driving school, receives a fee of Rs.6,000/- for teaching driving. Hence, on the preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the revision petitioner/husband is working in the motor driving school and hence, receiving an income. 10. When this being the fact, the revision petitioner/husband is liable to maintain his wife, as his wife does not have any income for her livelihood. Therefore, considering all the relevant aspects and living conditions that the revision petitioner/husband and respondent/wife are living in Belagavi City and the Family Court has correctly assessed quantum of maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay the same. Accordingly, no merit found in the revision - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 petition to cause interference in the order passed by the Family Court. Hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 12. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this order. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [SHRI MANOHAR @ PRASHANT S/O ISHWARTALWAR, VS. SMT. ANITA W/O MANOHAR @ PRASHANT TALWAR,] 08.01.2026 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO This Court, on 06.01.2026 has disposed of the petition by dismissing the revision petition. Learned counsel for revision petitioner filed a memo for ‘being spoken to’, to address some arguments with regard to that the application filed by the revision petitioner before the Family Court under section 340 of Cr.P.C. is not considered. Therefore, to address arguments on that point, requested to hear the submissions. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner/husband is just PUC - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 passed and his wife is a B.Com. degree holder. Therefore, the wife is more capable of earning than the revision petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that when the wife being a B.Com. degree holder and able to secure a job, then maintenance order cannot be ordered against the income of the husband. Further submitted that, though the wife has left job in the year 2019, but at the time of filing the petition, she was earning income and that has been borne out from the evidence of CW.1 and Ex.C.1 to C.3. Further submitted that the Family Court has not considered the application filed by the husband under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, prays to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. 3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and upon perusal of the Trial Court records, it reveals that on 16.10.2024 the husband has filed application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and the Family Court ordered on 25.01.2025 that the said application will be considered along with the main appeal on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 its merit and invited both the advocates to address arguments on the application. Then, on 25.03.2025, the Family Court has passed the order. 4. Upon considering the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., the depositions are more or less same as that of the defence taken in his statement of objections filed to the main petition before the Family Court contesting the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The depositions made in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. are nothing but the defence taken in the statement of objections. The Family Court in its order has considered the evidence on record. But the Family Court has not stated so that the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is considered by expressing so in the order. It is just an omission made by the Family Court in not mentioning in the order that application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is considered, but in spirit the Family Court has considered the contentions taken in the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.No.19448/2015 dated 31.08.2021 in the case of Dr.Praveen R. vs. Dr.Arpitha and submitted that in that case also the wife has pleaded perjury, but the Family Court had not dealt with the said application for perjury. Therefore, it was interfered with and remanded the case to the trial Court. The facts and circumstances therein are different. In that case the husband and wife are qualified medical practitioners. In the said case, the wife though was doctor by practicing medical profession has suppressed the fact before the Family Court that she was not earning. In this context, it was observed that the wife has committed perjury and remanded the case to the Trial Court. But, in the present case the wife is not a medical practitioner, according to her, she is B.Com. degree holder. Just because the wife is able to secure job, that does not absolve the husband from his responsibility to maintain the wife. The same is applicable to the husband’s salary. When the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 husband is able to earn income, then it is his bounden duty to maintain his wife. Therefore, here lesser educational qualification by the husband does not absolve the responsibility of husband to maintain his wife though the wife is B.Com. degree holder. 6. There is no cogent evidence placed by the husband that wife is under any employment and is earning. The Family Court has considered the evidence of CW.1 and also Ex.C.1 to C.3 documents and that itself proved that there is no evidence placed by the husband to prove that the wife is earning income. Therefore, the Family Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, the Family Court has considered the averments made in the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. in the order and passed the order by granting maintenance. The only omission made by the Family Court is expressing the consideration of application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., but in spirit the Family Court has considered the averments made in the deposition made in the affidavit filed - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:87 RPFC No. 100099 of 2025 in support of the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no perversity found in the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. When the revision petition is filed by the husband, admittedly the number of days or years of consummation of marriage is immaterial when the wife is estranged from the husband and sought for maintenance. Therefore, the revision petitioner husband is responsible to maintain his wife and accordingly is liable to pay maintenance amount as ordered by the Court. Therefore, there is not need to make any interference in the order passed by the Family Court. Therefore, the memo filed for ‘being spoken to’ is rejected. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1