Revision petition challenging Family Court order granting maintenance was dismissed. Bench held striking defence for non-payment of interim maintenance was justified per Supreme Court precedents and challenged quantum was not unsustainable.
Revision petition dismissed; impugned order upholding maintenance order stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 133 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O B.K. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O OORUKERE CHECK POST, RANGAPURA KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST - 572 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(SERVICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2020 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.41/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI)
Challenging order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, in C.Misc. no.41/2019, this petition is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:28614 RPFC No. 133 of 2020
filed application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for minor daughter-respondent no.2.
unsustainable and sought for its setting-aside.
order.
i) Whether Family Court committed material irregularity in striking off defence of petitioner for mere non-compliance with direction to pay interim maintenance?
ii) Whether findings of Family Court on entitlement and quantum of maintenance call for interference?
Point no.1:
in Koushalya v. Mukesh Jain reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 750, striking of defence for non-compliance with direction to pay interim maintenance, would be justified. Therefore, Family Court cannot be stated to have committed any irregularity insofar as said aspect. Point no.1 is answered in negative.
Point no.2:
observed by Family Court, respondents have only pleaded that after birth of daughter - respondent no.2, petitioner's behaviour towards respondent no.1 changed and he started harassing her with demands for dowry. Though, her allegations about petitioner being womanizer, having illicit relationship and later marrying Shilpa, were not substantiated with specific evidence, it is seen that application for maintenance was filed in year 2019, and as admitted by petitioner, he had filed M.C.no.11/2016 for divorce, which was dismissed on 06.09.2017. Application for maintenance was in fact, filed after dismissal. Therefore, existence of marital discord between parties prior to filing of application for maintenance would be substantiated. Hence, it cannot be contended that respondents were not justified in residing separately from petitioner.
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 , has held that it is duty of able-bodied man to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and children. Therefore, maintenance ordered should be sufficient for survival and cannot depend only on income. Family Court has considered his monthly income as more than Rs.15,000/- and ordered payment of monthly maintenance to wife at Rs.4,000/- which would be less than 1/3rd and Rs.3,500/- to respondent no.2 - daughter, which would be a little more than 1/5th . In any case, amount is barely sufficient for survival. Hence, point no.2 is answered in negative.
survive for consideration and same is dismissed.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
SNC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether striking off defence for non-compliance with interim maintenance direction constitutes material irregularity?
Whether findings of Family Court on entitlement and quantum of maintenance call for interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Koushalya v. Mukesh JainApplied¶39
Koushalya v. Mukesh Jain, AIR OnLine 2019 SC 750 · Who else cites this
Anju Garg & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar GargApplied¶46
Anju Garg & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Sri. Santhosh Kumar
Smt. Geeta B.N
Kumari Sinchana S
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
