Smt.Bibijan W/O Dawalsab Daleel, Vs Dawalsab S/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt.Bibijan W/O Dawalsab Daleel, Vs Dawalsab S/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

RPFC No.100036/2019 partly allowed: Family Court order dated 05.12.2018 in Crl.Misc. No.195/2018 modified; respondent directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.1 (wife) and Rs.3,000/- to petitioner No.2 (daughter) till her marriage, in each case from the date of the order; W.P. No.139872/2020 disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (wife and daughter) made out any ground for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1,000/- each awarded by the Family Court to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively as claimed. +1 more

Court's answer

Where petitioners establish neglect by the respondent without sufficient cause and have no source of their own sustenance, they are entitled to maintenance, and the award shall take into consideration the standard of living to which they are accustomed and the basic requirements to be met.

Ratio / Principle

The parties residing separately for over three decades cannot by itself absolve the respondent of his legal and moral obligation of providing maintenance, since the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent still subsists.

Key takeaways

Though it was contended that petitioner No.2 has completed her education acquiring a Masters degree, no material was brought on record to show that she has any avocation or occupation.ratio¶66
Considering the age of the parties and their marital relationship over the years, grant of Rs.1,000/- each as maintenance is abysmally low and requires enhancement, particularly since the petitioners reside in rented premises with neither accommodation/shelter nor any source of income and cannot be left to fend for themselves.ratio¶70
In light of the modified maintenance order, the writ petition filed by the respondent questioning the territorial jurisdiction does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (M.G.S. Kamal J., 16.07.2025): Wife and daughter sought enhancement of the Rs.1,000/- p.m. each awarded ex parte by the Family Court, Gadag in Crl.Misc. No.195/2018 under S.125 Cr.P.C.; the husband opposed, pleading 33 years' separation and the daughter's MSW qualification. Held: mere separate residence for decades does not absolve the husband of his legal and moral obligation to maintain where the marriage subsists; no material showed the postgraduate daughter had any avocation; Rs.1,000/- each was abysmally low given the parties' ages, the marital relationship, and that the petitioners lived in rented premises with neither shelter nor income, maintenance being assessed by the standard of living accustomed to and basic requirements. Enhancement allowed: Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the daughter till marriage, from the date of the order, modifying the Family Court order dated 05.12.2018. The husband's writ (Arts.226/227 r/w S.482 Cr.P.C.) questioning territorial jurisdiction and seeking quashing of Crl. Misc.No.232/2019 was disposed of as not surviving.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100036 OF 2019 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 139872 OF 2020 (GM-FC)

RPFC NO.100036/2019:

BETWEEN:

SMT. BIBIJAN W/O. DAWALSAB DALEEL, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: C/O IMAMSAB DAWALSAB KILLEDAR, KANAVI VILLAGE,

TQ: DIST: GADAG – 582 103.

KUMARI DILSHAD D/O. DAWALSAB DALEEL, AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: C/O IMAMSAB DAWALSAB KILLEDAR, KANAVI VILLAGE, TQ: DIST: GADAG – 582 103.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

DAWALSAB S/O. HUSENSAB DALEEL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DALIYAR ONI, MULGUND – 582 117, TQ & DIST: GADAG.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2018 IN CRL. MISC. PETITION 195/2018 PASED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG, THE PETITIONER NO.1 MAY BE AWARD RS. 20,000/- AND PETITIONER NO.2 MAY BE AWARDED RS. 15,000/P.M. AS MAINTENANCE AMOUNT; AND LITIGATION CHARGES OF RS. 20,000/- MAY ALSO BE AWARDED AND ETC.,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

W.P. NO.139872/2020:

BETWEEN:

DAWALSAB S/O. HUSENSAB DALEEL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: BANDI ONI, MULGUND, TQ & DIST: GADAG – 570 001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. BIBIJAN D/O. MUKTUMSAB ANSARI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & SOCIAL WORK, R/O: DHARWAD, NOW RESIDING AT KANAVI – 580 001.

KUMARI DILSHAD D/O. DAWALSAB DALEEL, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: MULGUND NOW RESIDING AT IMAMSAB DAWALSAB KILLEDAR HOUSE, AT KANAVI, TQ: DIST: GADAG – 570 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MEGHARAJ H. KABADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MISC.NO.232/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT GADGA VIDE ANNEXURE – B1 IN PURSUANCE OF IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE – B; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 PASSED BY PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG IN CRL. MISC. NO.195/2018 ON VIDE ANNEXURE – B AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

This petition is by petitioners - wife and

daughter respectively of the respondent aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2018 passed in Crl.Misc. No.195/2018 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, in terms of which the Family Court while allowing the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has directed the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹1,000/- to petitioner No.1 from the date of petition i.e. 17.10.2018 and ₹1,000/- to petitioner No.2 from the date of petition till her marriage.

Marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent having been solemnized in the year 1992 at Dharwad and petitioner No.2 having born out to the said marriage is not in dispute. There appears to have been some marital discord between petitioner No.1 and the respondent, resulting in both of them staying separately.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

It is alleged that the respondent despite having sufficient source of income from his petrol bunk being run at Mulgund and a grocery shop, computer and Xerox shop and the landed properties having income of ₹25,00,000/per annum, has deliberately neglected to maintain the petitioners. As such, they were constrained to approach the Court seeking maintenance in a sum of ₹20,000/- to Petitioner No.1 and ₹15,000/- per month to petitioner No.2.

Though the notice of the said petition was issued, respondent had remained absent and was exparte before the Family Court.

Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2. On appreciation of the evidence, the Family Court found that the petitioners being entitled for ₹1,000/- each and accordingly partly allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating

the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that despite there being no challenge to the averments made by the petitioners in the petition regarding the source of income which the respondent has, the Family Court has awarded a paltry sum of ₹1,000/- each to the petitioners. He submits that the Family Court ought to have at least taken into consideration the basic requirement to be met with notwithstanding whether there was a proof of income or not. He submits the amount of ₹1,000/- each awarded by the Family Court is abysmally on lower side. Hence, seeks for enhancement of the same.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that petitioner No.1 and respondent have been staying separately for over 33 years and petitioners No.1 and 2 have over the period been maintaining themselves, indicate that they have ability and means to maintain themselves and are not dependent on the providence of respondent. He further submits that

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

petitioner No.2 is major and she is graduated in MSW and she is capable of earning her own livelihood. As such, there is no requirement of granting any maintenance.

It is his submission that the respondent was earlier working as a teacher and now has lost the job due to the family feud between petitioner No.1 and himself and now he is without any occupation/avocation and hence any enhancement in the matter would cause prejudice. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

Heard. Perused the records.

Marriage between the parties and the paternity of petitioner No.2 is not in dispute. The respondent despite service of notice has not participated in the proceedings before the Family Court. However, there is no challenge by respondent to the order passed by the Family Court.

The only question requires to be considered is whether the petitioners have made out any ground for enhancement of maintenance from ₹1,000/- each awarded

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

by the Family Court to ₹20,000/- and ₹15,000/respectively as claimed.

It is settled position of law that if the petitioners are able to make out that they have been neglected by the respondent without sufficient cause, and they have no source of their own sustenance they are entitled for the maintenance and the award of maintenance shall be by taking into consideration the standard of living to which they are accustomed to and the basic requirement to be met with.

No doubt, the parties are stated to have been residing separately for over 3 decades. That alone cannot be the consideration to absolve the respondent from his legal and moral obligation of providing maintenance when admittedly the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent still subsists. Though it is contended that petitioner No.2 has completed her education acquiring Masters, no material is brought on record to show that she is having any avocation/occupation.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

Taking into consideration these aspects of the

matter and the age of the parties and their marital relationship over the years, grant of ₹1,000/- each as maintenance is, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is abysmally low which requires to be enhanced. This is also keeping in mind of the fact that the petitioners are residing in a rented premises. Thus, they neither have any accommodation or shelter to live in nor any source of income and they cannot be left to be fended by their destiny.

15. Consequently, the following:

ORDER

(a) RPFC No.100036/2019 filed by the petitioners – wife and daughter respectively is partly allowed.

(b) Order dated 05.12.2018 passed in Crl.Misc. No.195/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag is hereby modified.

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8814 RPFC No. 100036 of 2019 C/W WP No. 139872 of 2020

HC-KAR

(c) Respondent is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- to petitioner No.1 from the date of this order.

(d) Respondent is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- to petitioner No.2 from the date of this order till the marriage of petitioner No.2.

(e) In the light of the aforesaid order, the Writ Petition No.139872/2020 filed by the respondent questioning the territorial jurisdiction may not survive for

consideration. Hence, the same is disposed of.

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14