Partly allowed¶¶43

Smt Lakshmi Baliganur W/O B P Kashinath v. B P Kashinath S/O Basavraj

Maintenance enhancement – Revision petition (RPFC) under S.19(4), Family Courts Act, 1984

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2025RPFC/100043/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: enhancement of maintenance; minor child; education; earning wife; S.19(4) Family Courts Act; RPFC No. 100043 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; Justice E.S. Indiresh; Principal Judge, Family Court, Haveri; Crl.Misc.No.21/2021; M.C.No.10/2020 restitution of conjugal rights; VRL Logistics; maintenance enhanced from ₹6,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month; respondent served and unrepresented; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC-D:5490.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; monthly maintenance payable by the respondent to petitioner No.2-child enhanced from ₹6,000/- to ₹10,000/-; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶¶43

Smt Lakshmi Baliganur W/O B P Kashinath Vs B P Kashinath S/O Basavraj — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5490 RPFC No. 100043 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶8

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2024 (-)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. LAKSHMI BALIGANUR

¶11

W/O. B.P. KASHINATH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BPS MEDICAL STORE, B.H. ROAD,

¶12

OPP. TO ASHWINI NURSING HOME, ARISIKERE, TQ: ARISIKERE, DIST: HASAN, NOW AT C/O. KARABASAPPA ULAVEPPA GADAMUDI, R/O. HANDIGANUR, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶13

KUM. ANVITHA D/O. B.P. KASHINATH, AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. BPS MEDICAL STORE, B.H. ROAD, OPP. TO ASHWINI NURSING HOME, ARISIKERE, TQ: ARISIKERE, DIST: HASAN, NOW AT C/O. KARABASAPPA ULAVEPPA GADAMUDI, R/O. HANDIGANUR, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶14

Location: HIGH MOHANKUMAR COURT OF B SHELAR KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

(PETITIONER NO.2 IS BEING MINORS R/BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN NATUARAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1 )

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

B.P. KASHINATH S/O. BASAVRAJ, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL SHOP BUSINESS, R/O. BPS MEDICAL STORE, B.H. ROAD, OPP. TO ASHWINI NURSING HOME, ARISIKERE, TQ: ARISIKERE, DIST: HASAN-573103.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5490 RPFC No. 100043 of 2024

¶24

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENHANCE AND AWARD THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FOR PETITIONERS AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HAVERI IN CRL.MISC. NO.21/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.21/2021 challenging the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haveri (for short “the Family Court”) seeking enhancement of maintenance.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as er their rank before the Family Court.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioners that, the marriage of petitioner No.1-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 25.11.2016 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was ill-treating the petitioner No.1 and hence, she left the

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5490 RPFC No. 100043 of 2024

¶32

matrimonial home and started residing separately and as such, she filed Crl.Misc.No.21/2021 seeking maintenance from the respondent. The respondent also filed M.C.No.10/2020 for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶33

After service of notice, the respondent entered

¶34

appearance before the Family Court and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition. It is also stated that the petitioner No.1-wife is working as accountant in VRL office and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 08.07.2022 dismissed the petition insofar as petitioner No.1-wife is concerned, however granted maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-child. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioners.

¶36

Heard Sri. Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent-husband though served with notice has remained absent.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5490 RPFC No. 100043 of 2024

¶38

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for

¶39

the petitioners that the reasons assigned by the Family Court denying the maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife is liable to be interfered with in this petition. He also contended that the petitioner No.2-child is pursuing her education and therefore, the award of maintenance by the Family Court requires to be interfered with in this petition.

¶40

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners it is not in dispute that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 25.11.2016 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that M.C.No.10/2020 is filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Taking into consideration the factual aspects that the parties are residing separately, I

¶41

am of the view that the petitioners are entitled for maintenance. However, the respondent has stated that the petitioner No.1-wife is working in VRL Logistics and same was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Family Court is just and proper insofar as

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5490 RPFC No. 100043 of 2024

¶43

petitioner No.1-wife is concerned. However, insofar as petitioner No.2-child is concerned, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, particularly, the interest of education of petitioner No.2-child, I am of the view that the order of maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month is on the lesser side and requires to be enhanced to ₹10,000/- per month to be payable by the respondent. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part by enhancing the maintenance to ₹10,000/- per month payable to the petitioner No.2-child by the respondent.

¶44

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶46

YAN CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Smt Lakshmi Baliganur W/O B P Kashinath v. B P Kashinath S/O Basavraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmi Baliganur W/O B P Kashinath v. B P Kashinath S/O Basavraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S N Mohan Kumar Alias G N R Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rekha Alias Renuka W/O Thippanna Kappatti Vs Tippanna S/O Basappa Kappatti

Shankarappa S/O Satyappa Hanapur Vs Neelavva W/O Basavaraj Hanapur

Smt. Yasmin Banu W/O Mohammed Irfan Sayed Vs Shri. Mohammed Irfan S/O Abdul Khadar Sayed

Sudha Subhash Anvekar Vs Anandu Majalikar Damodar Majalikar

Narasimha Vs Mahabaleshwar