Mahadev Vs Kavya — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mahadev Vs Kavya — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the 134-day delay in filing RPFC No. 200065 of 2025 should be condoned (I.A.No.1/2025). +1 more

Court's answer

Financial hardship arising from claimed unemployment is the sole ground urged and would not be sufficient cause; I.A.No.1/2025 seeking condonation of the 134-day delay is dismissed, and consequently the revision petition is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

A mere claim of unemployment does not suffice to escape the liability of maintaining wife and children where the relationship is not disputed; the Court invoked Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, that an able-bodied husband cannot escape liability to maintain wife and children even on the ground of being unemployed.

Key takeaways

The maintenance awarded — Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the two children — cannot be stated to be without any basis or excessive.ratio¶¶38
Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the Family Court has passed the order and there is no good ground for the High Court to interfere with it.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act by the husband challenging order dated 23.08.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc.No.178/2024, which awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to each of the two minor children (aged 7 and 3). Filed with 134 days' delay; I.A.No.1/2025 sought condonation on the sole ground of the petitioner's claimed unemployment and financial hardship. Relying on Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, the Court held that an able-bodied husband cannot escape liability to maintain his wife and children even on the ground of unemployment, that a mere claim of unemployment does not suffice where the relationship is not disputed, and that the award — passed with note of assertions that the petitioner held landed properties — was neither baseless nor excessive. Finding no good ground to interfere, the Court dismissed I.A.No.1/2025 and consequently dismissed the revision petition.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3653 RPFC No. 200065 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200065 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

MAHADEV S/O CHANDRAKANTHA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.1-92, MAHAGAO VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 104.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI DEEPAK V.BARAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

KAVYA W/O MAHADEV

D/O IRANNA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

BHAGYASHREE D/O MAHADEV, AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (MINOR) U/G OF HER NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.

Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SAMART S/O MAHADEV, AGE: 3 YEARS, MINOR, U/G OF HIS NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.

ALL ARE R/O: 28, MAHAGAO VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 104. NOW AT BABALAD VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI IN CRL.MISC.NO.178/2024.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3653 RPFC No. 200065 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Challenging order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi, (for short, ‘family Court’) in Criminal Miscellaneous no.178/2024, this petition is filed.

There is delay of 134 days in filing petition. I.A.no.1/2025 is filed for its condonation.

Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel submitted, delay was on account of financial hardship and sought for condonation of delay. It was submitted, family Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to wife and Rs.2,000/-

each to two children. Since petitioner is unemployed, he is unable to pay same.

Heard learned counsel.

Except financial difficulty on account of petitioner

claiming to be unemployed, no other ground is urged. Order impugned is ex parte. Petitioner has not filed affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities. Merely claming to be unemployed would not suffice to escape from liability of

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3653 RPFC No. 200065 of 2025

HC-KAR

maintaining wife and children when relationship is not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shamima Farooqui vs.

Shahid Khan reported in (2015)5 SCC 705 held any ablebodied husband cannot escape liability to maintain wife and children even on ground of being unemployed. It is also seen while passing impugned order, family Court took note of assertions by respondents that petitioner was having landed properties. Respondents no.2 and 3/children are aged 7 years and 3 years respectively. Award of maintenance of Rs.3,000/to wife and Rs.2,000/- to each of children cannot be stated to be without any basis or being excessive. Taking note of facts and circumstances, family Court has passed order. I do not see any good ground to interfere with order.

For above said reason and as financial hardship is

sole ground urged which would not be sufficient cause, I.A.no.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, petition is dismissed.

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 Ct: Vk