Allowed¶40

M S Sanju v. C v Veenapriyadarshini

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2025RPFC/129/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RPFC No. 129 of 2019; High Court of Karnataka; Lalitha Kanneganti, J.; decision dated 19.08.2025; maintenance cancellation; effective/operative date of cancellation; Section 127(2) Cr.P.C.; Section 19(4) Family Courts Act; C.Misc.No.151/2016; C.Misc.No.32/2004 / C.Misc.No.332/2004 dated 07.09.2007; Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru; changed circumstances; husband not having income; wife earning; cancellation from date of petition 05.03.2016 versus 01.01.2018; revision petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; order in C.Misc.No.151/2016 dated 19.09.2018 modified so that the maintenance allowance granted to the respondent is cancelled with effect from 05.03.2016 (the date of the Section 127(2) petition) instead of 01.01.2018; all I.As. in the petition stand closed. ¶40

M S Sanju Vs C v Veenapriyadarshini — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the maintenance allowance granted to the respondent should operate from the date of the petitioner's application under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. (05.03.2016), as contended by the petitioner, rather than from 01.01.2018 as fixed by the Family Court.

¶28

Court's answer

This Court agreed that the cancellation of the maintenance allowance should have been effective from the date of the petition under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C., i.e., 05.03.2016, and not from 01.01.2018 as fixed by the Family Court.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The order passed in C.Misc.No.151/2016 dated 19.09.2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, was modified: the maintenance allowance granted to the respondent as per the order in C.Misc.No.332/2004 dated 07.09.2007 stands cancelled with effect from 05.03.2016, the date of the Section 127(2) petition.

¶39

Key takeaways

The Court proceeded on the footing, as found by the Family Court and not disturbed in this revision, that there were changed circumstances — the petitioner/husband was not having income and the wife/respondent was earning — and that the order dated 07.09.2007 had reached finality.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance — cancellation under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. — effective date of cancellation. On the husband's revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, the High Court of Karnataka held that the cancellation of the maintenance allowance granted to the wife by the order dated 07.09.2007 ought to take effect from 05.03.2016, the date on which the husband filed his application under Section 127(2) of Cr.P.C., and not from 01.01.2018 as fixed by the Family Court. Modifying the order in C.Misc.No.151/2016 dated 19.09.2018, the Court cancelled the maintenance with effect from 05.03.2016 and allowed the revision petition; the Family Court's findings of changed circumstances (husband without income, wife earning) and the finality of the order dated 07.09.2007 were left undisturbed. (Paras 33, 39, 40)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32166 RPFC No. 129 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 129 OF 2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M.S.SANJU AGED 42 YEARS, S/O M.K. SIDDALINGE GOWDA R/AT NO 1376, 5^TH CROSS, II MAIN, KRISHNAMURTHYNAGAR MYSORE – 570 004

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MS.KEERTHANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE SMT.P.C.VANITHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

C.V.VEENAPRIYADARSHINI AGED 39 YEARS D/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR R/AT NO 83, ROOPANAGAR, M K HALLI POST, DASANAKOPPALU GATE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶18

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2018 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.151/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.127(2) OF CR.PC., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM:

¶21

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:32166 RPFC No. 129 of 2019

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in C.Misc.No.151/2016 dated 19.09.2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the Family Court had allowed the petition filed by the petitioner/husband.

¶27

The petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 127 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to pass an order to stop the maintenance sanctioned to the respondent in C.Misc.No.32/2004 dated 07.09.2007 with effect from the date of petition. However, the allowance of maintenance granted to the respondent as per order passed in C.Misc.No.332/2004 dated 07.09.2007 is cancelled w.e.f. 01.01.2018.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petition is filed on 05.03.2016, the order should relate back to the said date. But without any basis, the Family Court had taken a decision on 01.01.2018 and later the same was pronounced on 19.09.2018. The Family Court had directed the petitioner not to pay the amount from 01.01.2018 and it should have been from 05.03.2016.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32166 RPFC No. 129 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Though notice is served on the respondent, no

¶32

vakalath is filed on behalf of her.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Considering the changed circumstances where the petitioner is not in a position to pay the maintenance and where the respondent is earning, the petitioner had filed C.Misc.No.151/2016 is filed under Section 127 (2) of Cr.P.C. The Family Court had come to the conclusion that there are changed circumstances and the husband is not having income and the wife is earning and the Family Court had held that the order dated 07.09.2007 has reached its finality. But in the order, it is stated that the allowance of maintenance granted to the respondent as per order in C.Misc.No.332/2004 dated 07.09.2007 is cancelled w.e.f 01.01.2018. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it should have been from the date of petition i.e., 05.03.2016. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The order passed in C.Misc.No.151/2016 dated 19.09.2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:32166 RPFC No. 129 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Mysuru, is modified and the allowance of maintenance granted to the respondent as per order in C.Misc.No.332/2004 dated 07.09.2007 is cancelled with effect from 05.03.2016 i.e. from the date of the petition filed under Section 127(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶40

ii. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed .

¶41

iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶43

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M S Sanju v. C v Veenapriyadarshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Sanju v. C v Veenapriyadarshini

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.J.M.Anil Vs Sri.Babu

Smt. Gulab Vs Sri. Mohammed Azeemulla

Radha Munukuntla Vs M Narsimha

Mr. Colin Kenneth Ward Vs Mrs. Sushma. J

Sri v Manjunatha, Vs Smt N Amaravathi

Smt. Gulabi Vs Shoba