This revision petition challenged the Family Court's maintenance order under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The High Court held that the quantum was reasonable based on the admitted income and property holdings, affirming the order.
Revision petition dismissed; Family Court order dated 13.03.2020 affirmed.
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 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
RPFC NO. 143 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI NIRANJAN V., S/O LATE D.T. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.11 3RD CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE, DEVAPPA GARDEN, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094.
…PETITIONER
[BY SRI SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
KUM. N.PRATHIKSHA, D/O NIRANJAN, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/AT NO.1 9TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK NAGARBHAVI, SUMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 078. REP. BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN (GRANDFATHER) SRI VEERASIDDAIAH, S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, 9TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI, SUMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 078.
…RESPONDENT
[BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.120/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.PC. FOR MAINTENANCE.
NC: 2024:KHC:25263 RPFC No. 143 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Challenging judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 passed I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, Crl.Misc.no.120/2016, this petition is filed.
Court, ordered him to pay exorbitant amount towards maintenance.
NC: 2024:KHC:25263 RPFC No. 143 of 2020
Rs.1,50,000/-per month. Apart from same, he held immovable properties earning rental income of Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. He was also stated to be living in own house with three floors. Same would indicate that petitioner was having rich life style, which would justify claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/-.
is:
"Whether impugned order calls for interference?"
NC: 2024:KHC:25263 RPFC No. 143 of 2020
already married. He further admitted that his mother was unable to move. Since, there was no acceptable explanation for lack of information, adverse inference was drawn. As it would be petitioner rather than respondent, who would have information about income from properties, drawing of adverse inference would be justified.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Psg*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's fixation of maintenance at Rs.15,000/- suffers from material irregularity or illegality allowing interference under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act?
Whether the quantum of maintenance is justified based on the petitioner's admitted income and immovable properties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pyla Mutyalamma Alia Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and Anr.Applied¶37
(2011)12 SCC 189 · Who else cites this
Rajnesh v. NehaApplied¶42
(2021) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Niranjan V.
Kum. N.Prathiksha
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
